Plea to New Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, for Cultural Change & Institutional Integrity in the Interests of Pets, Owners & the Ethics Instilled In Future Graduating Veterinarians

Dear Vice-Chancellor Venter,

Welcome to Massey University.

As you begin your tenure today, February 2nd, you inherit one of New Zealand’s most prestigious learning institutions.

You also inherit a burgeoning crisis of institutional integrity; unauthorised, undisclosed and harmful procedures on clients' pets, potentially lethal levels of incompetence and malpractice, and a culture of "reputation-first" damage control that - unless addressed immediately - will define the start of your leadership.

I am writing to you regarding the death of my dog, Harry, at the Massey Companion Animal Hospital - a case that has moved far beyond a clinical dispute and into the realm of massive malpractice and full-scale institutional deception.

At this summary page of the collection of expose articles I have researched and written - and that I will continue to produce - you will find the gradually unfolding revelations of my investigations to seek clinical (and other, related) explanations as to how the dog (my own deeply loved, precious papillon, Harry) could have been admitted for a straightforward rehydration procedure and was last interacted with by me at midnight, while standing up vertically on his hind legs, reaching out in full extension through his cage door and crying loudly for me . . . to the dog you see in the photograph at the bottom of this letter to you i.e. in full physical and mental collapse.

And how it could be that - from the "summarised" "notes" I have thus far been able to prise out of the University's Legal and Governance department that indicate he was sedated at 1am with a cocktail of contraindicated sedatives for the convenience of ICU personnel - after nonetheless managing to emerge from this heavy, contraindicated sedation as you see in the shot right at the bottom of this page, sometime thereafter and before his 3pm next day presentation back to me, he was in the state you see in the photo directly above that one.

To date, the University’s response under Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley has been one of obstruction - including of the full medical records and footage that the University is strictly and legally obligated under the Privacy Act 2020 to release, unredacted and in full (not simply a heavily redacted and retrospectively i.e. six weeks later altered and added-to "summary").

On the eve of your arrival - i.e. on Friday, January 30 - I received what can only be described as a heavy-handed legalistic intimidation from Dean Huxley, threatening me with your very large and very well-paid law firm, Buddle Findlay. This, by way of deterring me from submitting a formal complaint of Non-Compliance to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, to force thei release of the records and the footage (that which I am advised no longer exists).

Here is where you can appraise yourself of the many horrific aspects of the circumstances surrounding this malpractice, deception, and my dog's otherwise completely unnecessary death . . . along with his coerced termination and even the loss of his ashes.

Vice-Chancellor, you have a unique "window of opportunity".

You are not responsible for the decisions made by Dean Huxley or the ICU staff prior to today. However, you are now - as of the commencement of your tenure today - responsible for the University’s response to these failures.

You can choose to follow on with the unfortunate Massey conventions and culture the likes of which Dean Huxley has bred in the "Companion Animal Hospital" (not so aptly named) allow the "Big Guns" of Buddle Findlay to continue an expensive, futile taxpayer-donor-and-student-fee-funded campaign of intimidation against a pet owner and high fee-paying client seeking the truth.

Or, you can act as a "new broom", mandating accountability and transparency by your organisation, starting with the immediate release of Harry's primary clinical records, the MAR (Medication Administration Records), the digital audit trails and the remaining 75 percent of footage that continue to be withheld.

You can also choose to order an immediate end to the unnecessary, unauthorised and potentially lethal sedation of ciients' pets for ease of the equally unauthorised procedures (for the benefit of students but with potentially fatal consequences to the animals) conducted upon them during their stays in your "Intensive Care" facility.

Perhaps most importantly of all, you can choose to recognise the fundamental, and potentially lethal, gaps in the knowledge of even your supposed specialists and senior-most personnel. Certainly, these alarming knowledge deficits were core in the unnecessary and totally avoidable death of my beloved dog, Harry.

Vice-Chancellor Ventner, Massey University should be a center of excellence and ethics, not a "House of Veterinary Horrors" hiding behind grossly compromised veterinary ethics (both at the institutional and at the individual level), total unaccountability, and legal gatekeepers.

It is to be hoped that you will use the opportunity afforded you by your new position of leadership, to steward this institution back toward the former.

Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly

Owner of Harry Kelly (Deceased following the clinical events and documented breaches detailed in this Letter)

Editor-in-Chief,  The Customer & The Constituent

___________________________

Executive Summary of Multiple Malpractices (Known Contra-indicated Overdosing, Withheld Life-Saving Corrective Care, Unauthorised Procedures, Clinical Deception, Coerced Termination & Breach of Bailee Obligations)

Prepared for: The Office of the Vice-Chancellor

This summary bypasses administrative excuses and focuses on the clinical facts of the case regarding the patient, Harry Kelly.

1.  Reckless Incompetence & Lethal Negligence:  The Gabapentin Gamble

• The Fact: Massey’s own diagnostics (full blood panel paid for by me upon admission) confirmed Harry was had significantly compromised renal (kidney) function, and previously diagnosed at Massey itself.

• The Act:  Despite the absence of pain and no plan for any surgery (the only two acceptable reasons for sedating a pet), ICU staff administered Gabapentin - a drug that is strictly contraindicated for patients with renal impairment due to the risk of toxicity and respiratory depression. It was further potentiated with a second drug.

• The Implication:  This was not a "clinical error" or "oversight". It was a violation of basic veterinary pharmacology. Administering a known toxin to a compromised patient constitutes Malicious Malpractice.

2. Unauthorised "Training Tool" Status (and Breach of Bailment)

• The Fact:  The owner had multiple times, provided express, written instructions - including to the practice management as well as floor staff - that Harry was not to be used for student training purposes. His delicate and owner-dependent psyche, as well as in latter times, his blindness, were contributing factors for this firm instruction, as was his owner's (my) repeated observations of negligent and uncompassionate staff attitudes towards Harry, my previous pet, and other owners' dogs.

• The Act:  Harry was subjected to "manoeuvres" (as seen in the 25% of released footage), including severe head restraint and eye manipulation, specifically to demonstrate responses to students. As above, the remaining 75% of footage taken on him (including, alarmingly, on cell phones without concern for data security and Privacy Act implications of this) have yet to be obtained. However, logic would dictate that the acceptability of what a pet's owner would witness in this footage is the reason for the refusal to release it.

• The Implication:  By sedating Harry specifically to facilitate these manoeuvres, Massey personnel moved from "treatment" to "educational misappropriation". This is a breach of the contract of bailment, of the VCNZ Code of Conduct, and also of the Consumer Guarantees Act.

3. The Manufactured Decline

• The Fact:  Although contemporaneous, primary clinical records (such as the MAR and ICU Flow Sheets) have been withheld from disclosure, replaced instead by a retrospective 'Clinical Summary', even the "Summary" document indicates that he had been repeatedly dosed throughout the night and morning with the Gabapentin and Maropitant cocktail. In only the first instance was the reason for this sedation clear i.e. "constantly vocalising".

(It is in regard to this that my other grave concerns regarding retrospective additions to the notes in this "Clinical Summary" document appear to have been made in numerous instances. Many are illogical in practice but appear to have a narrative-supporting reason. I produced a Media Release, which I provided to Massey, about the standard of "care" in the facility's ICU following my being forced to leave a terrified, disoriented blind dog at risk of breaking his outstretched paws in the grid of his cage as he reached out for attention being refused him by the two ICU staff.

I read now that apparently he was "held" all through the night. Yet the medication notes state that he was sedated for "vocalising" . . . a process which the notes show was repeated several times. Claims of holding a dog convenience-sedated to stop him crying, are in direct contradiction to the logic in the notes themselves. This is far from my only concern about significant defensive, narrative-supporting tracts and claims added well after Harry's death, which is perfectly possible on a "Clinical Summary" document. Meanwhile, the requested ICU footage was, of course, "overwritten" and (per Legal and Governance's email), "does not exist".)

• The Act:  During this "black hole", and despite his recovery from the initial over-sedation, to the degree demonstrated in the walking video at the bottom of this page, Harry’s sedation depth was subsequently then increased significantly without clinical justification, rendering him semi-comatose. This appeared to serve two purposes: His use as a live specimen for student training opportunities and associated videos (including on what appear to have been, private, cell phones), and to enable subsequent false representation of his true state when handed back to his owner (me) i.e. that his new state was related to a sudden neurological event or natural decline.

• The Implication:  The "neurological event" presented to the owner to coerce euthanasia was, in fact, a pharmaceutical stupor induced by the hospital to cover up the unauthorised student-handling and the Gabapentin (with further potentiation) overdosing.

4. Evidence Withholding

• The Fact:  Massey has withheld 75% of the video footage and refuses to provide the Medication Administration Records (MAR) and Digital Audit Trails and other components of Harry's full records.

• The Act:  Recommending a specific after-care firm that failed to maintain a professional chain of custody for Harry’s remains, and that had been told the owner "didn't want Harry back", despite the fact that the owner was prepared for Harry's body to be transported from Palmerston North to Hamilton expressly to facilitate private, individual cremation and the verifiable return of his ashes exclusively.

• The Implication:  These are the hallmarks of an institutional cover-up. By withholding the data that would prove the timing of the sedation, Massey is attempting to hide the fact that Harry was functionally killed by the staff before he was ever "euthanised" by the owner.

For a full list and breakdown of the specific violations of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, the Animal Welfare Act, and the Consumer Guarantees Act associated with this case, please read the formal Summary of Breaches here.

For further briefings you might start here, then go here, then here, then most definitely here, so you can see how Massey's own invoice gave the game away to start with, and perhaps land here.  And finally here, so that you can see how it feels to be  emotionally and psychologically pummeled for a collective two hours (yet with nothing convincing clinically) while in a stressed, openly-declared intensely sleep-deprived state (my and Harry's extreme sleep deprivation was even in the vet's own notes!, having been temporarily installed with my dog in a small campervan while insurance contractors stalled a large repair project) to agree to "euthanase" a dog that, while flopped in your lap like a rag doll, had been standing on his hind legs with his forelegs outstretched to you 15 hours prior as you left him being fully ignored by two socially chatting ICU staff.

And actually, perhaps one last piece, to give you an insight into how it feels going forward in your life, not only with your precious dog having been taken most unnecessarily from you, but being left knowing that his last night on earth was spent not only in a horrendously over-dosed (for ICU's convenience) state, but that the emergency life-saving corrective care that should have been then provided to him, was not, with his value seen instead in the pliable, compliant and easily-handle-able training aid he represented in that condition . . . and the resultantly incessant, completely unrelated-to-his-condition, invasive, cruel tests and observational procedures that were conducted on him, complete with eight teaching videos.

Meantime, VC Venter, look what the "professional veterinary staff" in the institution you now lead, Vice-Chancellor Venter, did to my dog. See the mess in the photo below where I am holding my precious little boy for what should  never have been "the last time". And please have someone explain honestly to you the two sets of contrasting images below . . . from only a few hours apart.

How did Harry go from standing up strongly on his hind legs and vocalising loudly in the Companion Animal Hospital's ICU (and looking like a normal dog) when I left him at midnight, to THIS mess when I returned for him (but was instead coerced intensively into consenting to his suddenly and inexplicably "urgent euthanasia"), just 15 hours later? 

How did he go from your staff's needing to install the "Dura Flow Coil" you see on Harry in the lower image below - an expensive, specialised, high-durability IV extension line with its specific coiled architecture designed for active, mobile and recovering patients - to the horrendous, near-comatose state depicted in the image above that, in less than six hours? Unless this catastrophic downward spiral was pharmacologically induced - as indeed their own invoice and even the "Clinical Summary" shows it was). NB: Forcing Harry to walk with his front leg bandaged from top to bottom with an immobilising device, just for him to be ghoulishly video'd as a teaching aid, is immensely cruel . . . as was the clawing open of his little blind eyes, complete with fingernails driving into his scalp, which I've captured as a telling still from the brief video released, while six remain unreleased by your Legal and Governance Department. I can hardly bare the thought of what they depict.

I now fully understand - albeit too late for Harry - why "Steffi", the ICU "vet", "invested" a total of approximately two hours to make sure I was not leaving that consultant signed that form to terminate his life. And why she sprung with glee to get the process under way the moment I finally hung my head in confused acquiescence.

Vice-Chancellor Venter, I cannot even bear to LOOK at this photo . . . but I ask that you do:

Below:  Harry, a contraindicated-and-convenience-sedated, private fee-paying patient having his little terrified blind eyes forcibly pulled. and held, open while being paraded around for an audience and filmed on cell phones.

Observations on Record Integrity:

One other particularly sinister aspect of this case, VC Venter: I wholly disagree with a number of certain specific additions in the 'Clinical Summary' which I very strongly suspect have been retrospectively added to support the narrative, including by one unnamed staff member who has never met me, let alone ever seen me interact with Harry. One especially ludicrous claim was my apparent failure to provide him with "stimulation" and interaction with his environment.

This criticism was entered by another staffer who was fully aware that i took my little blind dog everywhere with me in a specially manufactured "doggie stroller", and that he was well-known and loved by a wide variety of local humans who provided him with plenty of "stimulation" and "interaction", in addition to a multiple treat-dispensing toys with which he played actively multiple times a day, along with constant interaction with me. He was never alone and he was never without stimulation, unless sleeping or resting. Before and AFTER becoming blind.

Another wicked (I firmly believe defensively and retrospectively added) assertion from the same staff member who had never met me or seen me with Harry claime a "breakdown in owner/pet relationship". Really? Perhaps having never met me, this would explain why she hadn't noted my carrying him in a front pack in Petone's Repco store and pushing him in his stroller in Bunnings the day prior, or hand-feeding him on the way up to Massey,

in the same manner as I frequently enjoyed doing. And perhaps she could look into my face in any of the photos in this Series and repeat her vile fabricated assertion. Not only is it a vile assertion, I firmly contend that it - along with other desperate and obvious additions to the notes - it, like they, are a clumsy and non-credible retro-fit to support a narrative designed to shift the focus from the actual issue: clinical malpractice and deception to coerce termination. In fact, even from the extremely limited document provided by way of modification records, it can be readily seen that at least one individual was altering or adding to the notes right up to the date, six weeks after Harry's killing, when the Privacy Act forced their release to me.

In actual fact, I might like a word with you, VC Venter. I would like to see for myself your reaction when I acquaint you with other specific, both wicked and pathetic, "strategic" additions to the "Clinical Summary" (the one that can be seen as having insertions made to it right up until the morning it was released to me, some six weeks after Harry's killing).

"Strategic" additions that are so ludicrous as to give themselves away without the reader having to even logically process them: like the completely false statement by "Steffi" that she had, on a previous occasion, "sensitively" broached the topic of "euthanasia" . . . while, in fact, part of her coercion strategy on this particular visit, was asserting that Harry was not the "active and inquisitive little boy" he was when she last saw him (very difficult for him to have been while under the massive cumulative toxicity of repeated containdicated and potentiatied sedatives that his poor little compromised kidneys couldn't clear, although he was certainly giving it his best shot).

Matched only by the logistically ludicrous claim (clearly inserted following my media statement about the ICU staff's negligence towards Harry) that he had apparently "slept well due to being held all night" . . . except that even their own "Clinical Summary" shows they heavily sedated him at 1am and yet again at 1.26am, because he was "crying and vocalising". And that they pounded his kidneys with a further dose of this renally contra-indicated cocktail at 9am. Lying much? Of course, the ICU footage I requested under the Privacy Act, was conveniently "overwritten".

There are numerous more where those examples came from, and these will be the subject of a further article in this Series of exposes.