Is the VCNZ's 'Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians' A Document to Be Taken Seriously . . . Or Isn't It?

**THIS ARTICLE PENDING UPDATE RE FINDINGS OF KIDNEY-CONTRAINDICATION OF GABAPENTIN AND RE SUPPLY OF (ONLY) TWO OUT OF EIGHT VIDEOS OF HARRY.**

When we entrust our animals to a "teaching hospital", we expect the highest standard of clinical ethics.

We do not expect to have our pets  convenience-sedated without our knowledge or consent and in place of the big-fee ICU care we’re paying for; we don’t expect to be  coerced into ending our pets’ lives on the basis of false diagnoses, (LINK TO “IT WAS NOT EUTHANASIA” ARTICLE), we don’t expect  clinical duplicity and financial opportunism in charging practices, we don’t expect to be sent around in circles in a one hour, 3 minutes and 7 second phone call that terminates with being cut off in the process of supposedly being transferred multiple times (LINK TO AUDIO FILE OF 1 HOUR PHONE CALL TO MASSEY RECEPTION), we don’t expect to have  our pets’ ashes lost or “disposed of” when we’re waiting for them to be returned (LINK TO “ARE THESE HARRY’S ASHES OR NOT?” ARTICLE), and we don’t expect to be mercilessly and heartlessly stonewalled when we are trying to ascertain where our pets’ ashes actually are.

Following a forensic review of the clinical timeline and the "smoking gun" invoice associated with the death of my dog, Harry, I am formally documenting a series of what I contend are egregious breaches of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct, the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act, and the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

Breach 1: Failure of Informed Consent (VCNZ Code Clause 2.1 & 2.8)

The Code:  "Veterinarians must ensure that the client has a clear understanding of the animal’s condition . . . to enable the client to make an informed decision."

On the morning of December 1st, my dog, Harry, was administered 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax. This was done without my knowledge or authorisation, and without any need as he was not suffering pain or being prepared for any surgery.

Most critically, Gabapentin is a drug that relies almost exclusively on renal (kidney) excretion. To administer this drug to a senior dog—especially one whose blood results Massey was in the process of auditing for kidney function—is a direct violation of basic pharmacological safety. Had they consulted me, they would have known that Harry suffered from kidney disease, making the administration of Gabapentin not just a risk, but a clinical certainty for toxic accumulation.

(It should be noted that I had been in a lengthy phone discussion with Steffi around 11am that daty, when she had phoned to persuade me – most unexpectedly – to consent to the euthanisation of Harry. She never once mentioned that she had already administered 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax – or any such sedation of any kind.)

Furthermore, Harry was a senior dog and a dog who had been brought in the night before suffering from dehydration – two specific circumstances in which these drugs would have a greater than normal sedating and other enduring and undesirable effects. Further still, because I had not been consulted about this convenience-sedation, there was no opportunity for me to have advised the vet that Harry had, two months prior, had a hyper-reaction to Gabapentin and had been in a state of severe ataxia for more than 48 hours after its administration at low doses by the highly irresponsible local vet, South Wairarapa Vets, who didn’t bother to check for contraindications of the heavy duty sedative they were administering to Harry. While they failed, the country’s national veterinary teaching hospital should certainly conduct this fundamental, base-level due diligence.

When I arrived, the vet, "Steffi", presented Harry’s drug-induced ataxia (stumbling and vacancy) as a terminal "neurological event." However, she failed to disclose that Harry was under this heavy, unauthorised sedation.

*It should be noted that I still have not been informed, and that Massey is currently withholding Harry’s clinical records and all related information I have requested under the Privacy Act 2020. The only reason I am now aware of this falsified diagnosis is that I referred back to, and researched, the line items on the hospitalisation’s emailed receipted invoice.

Thus, the Massey vet, “Steffi”, suppressed the "clear understanding" required by law – and I was, to my now-greatest regret, coerced under these false pretences, into consenting to a killing based on a drug-induced "false positive" diagnosis. (LINK TO “THIS WAS NOT EUTHANASIA” ARTICLE.)

(Harry’s life was terminated for NO good reason, and I, having participated in what I belatedly know was a completely unnecessary killing, am suffering traumatic levels of guilt and grief. For Steffi, the vet, it was “just another day at the office”, using whatever means to bend a pet owner’s will to hers. For me, it was the last and saddest day of the most precious chapter of my life – and the days since have been the most traumatic, as I realise the fraud I was subject to and what was so unnecessarily sacrificed as a result of it.)

Breach 2: Professional Negligence & Duty of Care (VCNZ Standard of Care)

The Code:  "Veterinarians must act in a professional manner . . . and provide an appropriate standard of care."

Harry was a blind, senior patient. After he was taken from me and out to the ICU ward, I insisted on seeing him one last time for the night in his cage, and taking some toys to him. I found him disoriented and vocalising loudly in distress, while staff engaged in jovial social conversation and completely ignoring him, despite few other patients being in the ICU and his being just meters away from them.

When expressing my own distress over this and the fact that he was standing up reaching out through the bars of the cage in a manner that could have seen a disoriented blind dog break his legs had he not pulled them in while turning, the attending vet simply assured me that “everyone here loves animals” – while the two ICU personnel continued to ignore him and my own distress over the scene.

This is a direct failure of the Code’s Duty of Care clause. Furthermore, the use of "convenience-medication" to quiet a distressed animal rather than providing human comfort is a violation of the basic tenets of veterinary professionalism.

Breach 3: Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (Fair Trading Act 1986)

The Law:   Prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive.

The vet, Steffi’s, unsubstantiated and misleading diagnosis of an "unfixable" neurological event – while Harry was at the metabolic peak of a pharmaceutical pincer effect – is a textbook case of misleading conduct. To present a drug-induced state as a natural and rapid terminal decline is to deceive the consumer into an irreversible "purchase" (the euthanasia service).

Principle 2: Communication and Consent

The core of this principle is that veterinarians must maintain trust by being open, honest, and providing a clear path for owners to make informed decisions.

• Clause 2.1 (Clear Understanding):  "Veterinarians must ensure that the client has a clear understanding of the animal’s condition and the options for treatment... to enable the client to make an informed decision."

• Forensic Conflict:  By suppressing the fact that Harry was under heavy, contraindicated sedation while claiming he was in a spontaneous "neurological event," the vet, “Steff”, prevented me from obtaining a clear understanding of his actual condition.

• Clause 2.8 (Accurate and Complete Information): "Veterinarians must provide accurate and complete information to clients."

• Forensic Conflict:  The omission of the 100mg Gabapentin and Prevomax administration during my hour-long phone call and subsequent one-to-two-hour long in-person consultation is a direct violation of the requirement to provide "complete" information.

• Clause 2.3 (Informed Consent): This requires veterinarians to obtain consent for any procedure or treatment, which includes being transparent about the risks and side effects of medications.

• Forensic Conflict: Administering high-dose sedatives to a renal-compromised geriatric patient without prior authorisation – and then using the side effects of those drugs as a reason for euthanasia—constitutes a fraudulent induction of consent.

Breach 4: Financial Opportunism & Misrepresentation (Consumer Guarantees Act)

The Law:  Services must be provided with reasonable care and skill.

The Evidence:  The emailed invoice I belatedly located reveals a chilling contradiction. I was charged $198.38 for a "Mila Dura Flow Coil" – a specialised piece of equipment designed for long-term stabilisation and mobility in a recovering patient. Steffi, the vet, had called me at approximately 11am that day and insisted that Harry must be “euthanased”.

You do not install "Gold Standard" recovery equipment on a dog you have already marked for death. This is a failure to provide services with the "honesty" expected under the Act.

Breach 5: Records Integrity & Transparency

The current delay in releasing Harry’s full clinical records, metadata, and CCTV footage – now being handled by their "Legal and Governance" department – suggests an attempt to sanitise the audit trail. Under the Privacy Act 2020, an individual has a right to their information without "sanitisation”.

Furthermore, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct states that veterinary records must be released “as soon as practicable” upon an owner’s request.

Breach 5 (Continued): Integrity of Records: The Prohibition of Investigative 'Sanitisation' (VCNZ Clause 1.7 & Privacy Principle 6)

The Code:  VCNZ Code Clause 1.7 explicitly requires that clinical records be "accurate, contemporanous, and permit another veterinarian to take over the case."

The current delay in releasing Harry’s full clinical records, metadata, and CCTV footage – now being handled by their "Legal and Governance" department – suggests an attempt to sanitise the audit trail. Under the Privacy Act 2020, an individual has a right to their information without "sanitisation”.

Furthermore, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct states that veterinary records must be released “as soon as practicable” upon an owner’s request.

Any attempt to alter, redact, or "cleanse" a clinical record before release constitutes an interference with privacy under Section 66 of the Act and a severe professional breach of clinical record integrity.

Breach 6: The Assumed Wrongful ‘Disposal’ of Remains & Lack of Any Communication or Accountability (VCNZ Code Clause 1.13)

The Code:  "Veterinarians must ensure that the remains of deceased animals are handled with respect and in accordance with the owner's wishes."

The Breach:  Massey’s failure to maintain a verifiable chain of custody for Harry’s remains – leading to the claimed “disposal” of his ashes and the loss of his personal effects (gold) – is a direct violation of Clause 1.13.

Further, under the Consumer Guarantees Act, the hospital also failed to ensure the service of "remains handling" was provided with reasonable care and skill, resulting in wrongful disposal (albeit a pivot position that this claim had not been made at all, and the resultant refusal to take any actions to verify the authenticity of what were subsequently claimed to be Harry’s ashes).

The Companion Animal Hospital has taken the stance that Harry’s body was handed over to an external company and this it had no responsibility for any part of the matter, including for the conveyance of the correct communication of the owner’s (my) wishes. Meantime, the cremation company is insisting that they were told I “didn’t want Harry back”. See LINK TO ‘ARE THESE HARRY’S ASHES OR NOT?”

Breach 7: Institutional Obstruction and the Failure of Professional Respect (VCNZ Code Clause 1.11)

The Code:  "Veterinarians and their staff must communicate effectively and respectfully with clients."

The Evidence:  Below is the 1 hour, 3 minute and 7 second phone call to Massey I made in an endeavour to speak to an appropriate senior personnel member, after the Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, repeatedly refused to acknowledge my emails to determine the whereabouts of Harry’s remains. [LINK TO AUDIO RECORDING]. For readers who would prefer a transcript, [CLICK HERE].

Furthermore, when I managed to escalate the matter by virtue of researching the email address of the “Head of the School of Veterinary Science”, Jon Huxley, he summarily refused any assistance whatsoever. This institutional refusal to engage with a grieving client (with a well-justified reason for seeking communication and clarity) is a documented breach of the professional requirement for respectful communication.

Breach 7 (continued): Abrogation of Legal Bailment and Chain of Custody Obligations

Further to the above, Jon Huxley’s “no responsibility” stance is in direct contravention of the Common Law duty of a bailee and the Consumer Guarantees Act.

When a hospital takes possession of an animal's body and facilitates its transfer to a third party, they remain legally and ethically responsible for the oversight of that transfer. Claiming "no formal association" once a trauma occurs is a breach of the professional standard of care that encompasses the entire patient journey, including the return of remains.

Breach 7 (continued): Unauthorized Disclosure and Attempted Hijacking of Agency

The Privacy Act Principle 11 (Limits on disclosure of personal information) states that an agency must not disclose personal information to a third party unless they have the individual's authorisation.

My eventual escalation via finding the email of a senior-ranking member of the University’s executive, was summarily channelled directly back to the stonewalling Nijman and staff, who – instead of contacting me – for reasons best known to themselves, directly contacted a local Palmerston North virtual assistant with whom I had dealings, in an endeavour to deprive me of my own authority and agency in the matter of seeking to determine the authenticity of, and if authentic, the return of Harry’s remains.

This unauthorised discussion of my private dealings and current dispute with a third party is a clear and actionable breach of Principle 11 of the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

Breach 8: Deliberate and Continuing Delay in the Release of Records (Privacy Act Principle 6 & OIA 1982)

The co-ordinated delay in releasing clinical records [LINK TO “WAITING, MASSEY:” ARTICLE] represents a breach of Privacy Act Principle 6 (Right of access to personal information) and the Official Information Act 1982, which requires a decision on requests be made and communicated "as soon as reasonably practicable" (especially under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct) and no later than 20 working days.

By moving the request to "Legal and Governance" without providing the data, Massey is using bureaucratic delay as a tool of information suppression.

Breach 9: The Digital Blockade – Organised Suppression of Communication and Agency

Massey’s suspected role in the "digital blockade" of my communications and broadscale “poisoning” of my email address [LINK TO DIGITAL BLOCKADE ARTICLE] (if my strong suspicion, based on the equally strong indications, is correct) constitutes an active interference with an individual's right to seek and impart information.

This is not merely a bureaucratic dispute; this interference has crippled my ability to communicate with the external world at large, caused massive disruption to my life, and is actively interfering with my ability to conduct my daily activities.

Under the Privacy Act 2020, intentionally obstructing an individual in the exercise of their rights is a significant breach (Section 212: Interference with Privacy). An organised industry or internet-wide security filters blockade takes this breach to an entirely new level. Most critically, as a public institution, Massey is bound by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 14), which protects the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds. A "digital blockade" intended to isolate and silence a journalist is a direct assault on these constitutional protections.

Breach 10: Statutory Obstruction and Interference with Access (Privacy Act 2020, Section 58 & Section 66)

The Law:  Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020 mandates that an agency must provide access to information in the manner preferred by the requester (e.g., digital copies) unless it would "unreasonably" interfere with the agency's operations or prejudice the interests of others.

The Evidence:  Massey’s refusal to provide digital copies of the remaining 75% of Harry’s video records—insisting instead on a "controlled environment" viewing on-site—is a direct breach of this section. Given Massey’s technological capacity to perform standard redactions, this refusal is not a matter of "privacy" or "efficiency," but a calculated tactic to prevent independent forensic review and expert scrutiny. This constitutes an "Interference with Privacy" under Section 66 by creating an unreasonable barrier to the data, effectively shielding the hospital’s actions from outside oversight.

The Paper Trail: Reclaiming Agency and Rejecting Institutional Familiarity

The following email exchange between myself and the Massey University Governance and Assurance Office (Privacy Officer) illustrates the institution’s attempt to manage the situation through "first-name" familiarity while simultaneously stalling the release of critical evidence. It highlights my rejection of their "controlled" viewing terms and the formal demand for the digital release of the 75 percent of withheld video records.

Dear Ms Mullan

I am sending this initial response prior to having had the opportunity to review the materials in the data depository to which you have sent me a link. This email deals specifically with your ongoing refusal to provide digital access to 75% of the video records you hold of Harry.

Regarding the six videos you are currently withholding: I do not accept being restricted to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing as a valid form of access.

I consider restricting me to such a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing, to be a calculated manoeuvre that is emotionally and psychologically manipulative, cunning, and totally unacceptable. It is intended to prevent independent forensic scrutiny and to shield your clinical decisions and actions from outside oversight.

The Legal Breach (Privacy Act Section 58) According to Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020, if an individual has a right to access information, the agency must provide that information in the manner preferred by the individual (e.g. as a digital copy), unless doing so would:

• Prejudice the interests of others;
• Be contrary to a legal duty; or
• Impair "efficient administration”.

Your "privacy" excuse is a calculated manoeuvre to avoid your statutory duty. As a major University with significant technical resources, performing standard digital redactions (pixelation) – which would therefore avoid any risk of “prejudicing the interests of others” – is a basic administrative task and does not constitute an "unreasonable" burden or "impair efficient administration". Refusing to provide the files in my preferred digital format simply to prevent me from having a copy, is a breach of the Act.

Calculated Obstruction of Expert Scrutiny

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing makes a professional clinical audit logistically impossible. I reserve my right to seek a second, independent expert opinion – a right I was actively denied while Harry was alive, and a move that forced me into an irreversible decision under duress.

By limiting my access to the information in question to strictly that which can be performed at your own premises, you are ensuring no outside expert can review the footage, shielding your staff from forensic scrutiny.

Secondary Victimisation and Coercion

I consider restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative and cunning. It is a form of secondary victimisation, requiring me to immerse myself in the very environment in which I was coerced – under what the facts clearly indicate were false pretences – into allowing your staff to terminate my dog's life.

The Necessity of Forensic Review

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing is useless for a clinical investigation. Both I and independent experts require digital copies to rewind, freeze-frame, and properly examine the clinical interventions during the less than 24 hours Harry spent in your “care” – and during which his condition changed in the most extreme manner imaginable (based, as I now know) on unnecessary and owner-unauthorised pharmaceutical intervention. This restriction is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth.

Continuity of Access to the Data Depository

Regarding the materials you have already provided via a link: please ensure this link remains live with the records fully accessible until such time as I formally advise you – in writing – that my investigation, clinical audits, and all related legal or regulatory proceedings are concluded. Any premature termination of access will be viewed as a further act of obstruction.

Meantime, I require the redacted digital files of all eight videos. I look forward to receiving them by Friday, January 23, 2026.

In the meantime, please ensure your future correspondences address me more formally as Ms Kelly. Anyone who has any part in the coercion of a pet’s owner related to the pre-meditated clinical killing of that pet under false pretences – or the after-the-fact cover-up thereof – is not a party with whom I consider myself to be on first name terms.

Yours Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy Privacy@massey.ac.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2026 11:27 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Privacy Privacy@massey.ac.nz
Subject: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026

Kia ora, Jordan

Please see attached the university’s response to your privacy request. Due to the size of the files being supplied our letter includes a link for you to click to download/access the material covered in our response.

Kind regards, Governance and Assurance Office

From: Privacy Privacy@massey.ac.nz

Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2026 5:25 pm

To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Privacy Privacy@massey.ac.nz

Cc: Vet Clinic VetClinic@massey.ac.nz; Pauline Nijman P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz; Jon Huxley J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz; kevin.bryant@vets.org.nz

Subject: RE: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your request. The reference number for your request is 01/2026. If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch. Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 11 February 2026). If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

The response date shown takes into account:

1. Christmas Day (25 December 2025)
2. Boxing Day (26 December 2025)
3. Summer Holiday (27 December to 15 January 2026)
4. New Years Day (1 January 2026)
5. Waitangi Day (6/2/2026)

Notwithstanding the formal deadline for our response listed above, I note the clinics response to you on the 6th of January regarding the collation of the clinical records for Harry Kelly. I can confirm our office received the clinic’s files this afternoon. We will need some time to review and although I believe it is unlikely we will be able to respond tomorrow we will do best to respond as soon as possible. Please note from hereon in, our office will be communicating with you directly regarding the fulfilment of your request.

Kind regards,
Governance and Assurance Office

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com editor@consumeraffairswriter.com Sent: Friday, 26 December 2025 5:14 pm To: Privacy Privacy@massey.ac.nz Cc: Vet Clinic VetClinic@massey.ac.nz; Pauline Nijman P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz; Jon Huxley J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz; kevin.bryant@vets.org.nz Subject: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

Privacy Officer:

The below request for the clinical records of Harry Kelly (originally sent Dec. 22) should have been addressed directly to your office. Please confirm receipt and ensure the statutory 20-working-day clock is being monitored.

Regarding the integrity of these records: I require the full digital export, including the system's Metadata and Audit Logs (showing the date, time, and user ID for every entry and any subsequent modifications).

I am well aware that modern veterinary practice management software tracks all "edit" history and deletions. I expect the records provided to be the original, unedited entries as they existed at the time of Harry's care. Any discrepancies between the nursing logs and the clinical summaries will be noted and the subject of further action.

I look forward to your timely (and, I hope, ethical) co-operation.

Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Sent: Monday, 22 December 2025 9:05 pm

To: 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' vethospital@massey.ac.nz

Subject: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

To the Practice Manager:

I am writing to formally request a complete copy of the clinical records for my dog, Harry Kelly, who was a long-term patient at your facility. Please provide a full digital export of his entire file, to include:

• All clinical and veterinary notes.
• All time-stamped nursing logs and hourly monitoring charts (including his final admission in the ICU).
• Medication administration records (MAR).
• All internal and external communication logs regarding his care.
• All records of communication and co-ordination with third-party service providers (specifically Pet Farewells) regarding the handling and release of remains, and the specific instructions given to related parties.
• Diagnostic results and imaging reports.

Furthermore, I note that I was not provided with any invoice or itemised breakdown for the final sets of charges (Nov. 30 and Dec. 1). I was merely presented with an EFTPOS machine without any explanation of the cost componentry. I am requesting these formal tax invoices now. Please note that the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct instructs practices to provide full transparency with regard to costs and charges.

I would appreciate all records being provided in chronological order as a PDF export for my personal archives and permanent records. As the owner/guardian and the party responsible for the account, I am making this request pursuant to my rights under the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

Thank you in advance for your timely co-operation as required both by the Privacy Act and by the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct.

Sincerely, Jordan Kelly

A Call for Institutional Accountability

Massey University’s incoming Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, must decide: is this the "brand promise" Massey intends to keep?

A promise of convenience-based sedation, coerced “euthanasia” based on clinical fraud, no accountability (and a seeming lack of processes related to the release of bodies to external cremation services), and the digital suppression of whistleblowers?

I am not just a grieving pet owner. I am both a longstanding marketing professional with an extensive international background, and also a journalist with years of experience “in the trenches”. Yet, I have never witnessed anything as egregious as the set of circumstances that resulted in the coerced and unnecessary killing of my precious dog, Harry, nor the ongoing stonewalling and cover-ups in progress, and nor the loss of a pet’s ashes.

These are not "errors in judgment"; they are documented breaches of the professional and legal codes that not only govern every veterinarian in New Zealand but that should represent the most minimal baseline expected of an international teaching hospital.

Will the Veterinary Council of New Zealand Be the Watchdog It’s Mandated to Be . . . or the Institutional Guard Dog the More Cynical Among Us Have Come to Expect of Our Public Sector Regulatory Bodies?

Meantime, it is no secret that public sector and industry watchdogs have an unfortunately well-deserved reputation for acing more in the capacity of “guard dogs” of the very agencies and institutions they are meant to ensure uphold regulated, mandated and rightfully expected standards.

That unfortunate reality is central to my reasoning in producing this “audit” of breaches . . . which, given that I am not a regulator myself, is likely very “light-on” in its list of Massey’s failures.

READ MY OPEN LETTER TO VCNZ CHIEF EXECUTIVE, IAIN MCLACHLAN, AND MY DEMAND FOR A NEUTRAL & COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND THE UNREDACTED PUBLICATION THEREOF. 

I, and international accreditation and rankings organisations, will watch with interest to see if Massey’s egregious conduct will be given the quintessential “5D” protectionist treatment i.e. 1) Delay 2) Defer 3) Deny 4) Defend 5) Dismissed. For the sake of all dedicated pet owners everywhere, let’s remain for the moment, in fervent hope that such will not be the approach applied to the Harry Kelly Case.

The Role of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is a statutory regulatory body established by law (the Veterinarians Act 2005) to protect the public interest by ensuring veterinarians are competent and fit to practice, acting as the official guardian for the profession. While it functions under government mandate and sets standards, it's a statutory body overseeing a regulated profession, distinct from a direct government department but operating within the public sector's framework for professional standards and public safety.

Key Characteristics:

• Statutory Authority: Operates under specific legislation (Veterinarians Act 2005).

• Public Interest Focus: Its primary goal is safeguarding public health and animal welfare by ensuring high standards for vets.

• Regulatory Functions: Sets standards, registers vets, handles complaints, and ensures ongoing competence.

• Governance: Governed by a council with both elected veterinarians and lay members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, linking it to government oversight.

In essence, it's a public-facing, legally mandated body that ensures accountability and trust in the veterinary profession, much like other professional regulatory authorities in healthcare.

And in the Council’s own words (https://vetcouncil.org.nz/Web/Web/3.About/Our-Role.aspx): LINK TO RELEVANT PAGE OF VCNZ WEBSITE The Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is the statutory body responsible for upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals.