TO: The Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ)
CC: Massey University Leadership; International Veterinary Regulatory Bodies
SUBJECT: Forensic Evidence of Professional Misconduct, Clinical Fraud, and Institutional Negligence
FROM: Jordan Kelly, Owner of Harry Kelly (Clinically Destroyed – NOT ‘Euthanased’ – at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital, on Deember 1, 2025)
This letter serves as a formal demand for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of my dog, Harry Kelly, at Massey University Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025.
The evidence, as detailed in the hospital’s own Tax Invoice #610997 and subsequent clinical narratives, points to a systemic failure of care, multiple fundamental and severed breaches of the
VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, and an orchestrated act of clinical fraud.
I. Breach of Duty: The Culture of Negligence
On the night of November 30, Harry – a 15-year-old, blind, 4.6kg Papillon – was admitted for rehydration.
Upon entering the ICU (i.e. I insisted on seeing him prior to my leaving the hospital), I witnessed a profound detachment from the welfare of the patient:
- Active Neglect: ICU staff were observed ignoring a screaming, distressed, blind patient to engage in social conversation and attend to a newborn kitten.
- Failure of Human Comfort: Despite being meters away, no attempt was made to provide the human voice or touch required for a blind patient's orientation.
- Institutional Apathy: When this neglect was challenged, the attending veterinarian was unable or unwilling to instruct staff to attend to the patient, citing only that they "love animals" while the evidence of distress was ignored.
II. Pharmaceutical Fraud and Chemical Restraint
The hospital’s invoice reveals that rather than providing the mandated "human comfort", staff opted for unauthorised chemical restraint.
- The "Convenience" Dose: Overnight and/or on the morning of December 1, Harry was administered two capsules of
100mg of Gabapentin (i.e. Qty: 2) and
0.36ml of Maropitant (Prevomax).
- Prior Knowledge of Contraindication: The invoice confirms that
IDEXX Catalyst Chem17 and
Massey Bundle Lab Tests were performed on November 30. These tests would have established Harry’s renal impairment that would clearly have contraindicated the administration of Gabapentin –
a drug cleared almost exclusively by the kidneys – and, again – strictly contraindicated in renal-compromised geriatric patients.
- Potentially Lethal Potentiation: The use of Maropitant (Prevomax) served as a potentiating agent, creating an "anaesthetic-sparing effect" that deepened the sedation, effectively inducing a pharmacological collapse.
II:
Observation & Documentation In Place of Emergency Corrective Care Following A Catastrophic Drug Reaction
Massey veterinary staff and/or students didn't just 'fail' Harry;
they exploited him.
Between the hours of 1am and 9am, they observed a dog in a catastrophic, drug-induced crisis and chose to pick up their phones to video him in place of providing emergency life-saving corrective treatment.
Staff and students chose documentation over de-escalation and taking any action whatsoever to save my dog from the severe and readily visible consequences of their drug administrations.
This is not just clinical negligence; it is a
total collapse of professional, ethical, and legal duty. It moves this case from an overdose born of negligence or recklessnes, to one of malpractice, overt cruelty, through the
intentional withholding of life-saving care for institutional gain.
IV. Fabricated Diagnosis and Coerced Killing
The resulting drug-induced ataxia and sedation were falsely presented to me as evidence of a "neurological event" to coerce my consent for what was termed "euthanasia".
- Calculated Suppression of Facts: During a nearly one-hour phone call and a subsequent one-to-two-hour consultation, the attending vet, "Steffi", never once disclosed that Harry was under heavy, contraindicated sedation. She instead, dishonestly pointed to his severe ataxia as “evidence” of a supposed “neurological event” (her words).
- ·The Exit Strategy: The hospital billed for high-end
MILA Dura Flow Coil equipment ($198.38) – designed for mobile recovery – while simultaneously pushing for immediate termination, indicating administrative duplicity.
- ·The "Kill Shot": When Harry vigorously and vocally attempted to "override" the sedation to respond to my voice, the vet instructed me to hold him down to enable her to deliver the final lethal injection, therein achieving the complete destruction of he biological evidence of their malpractice.
Demand for Action
I demand that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand
not demonstrate the standard misguided protectionist loyalties of supposed regulatory bodies to the professions they are mandated to uphold the ethics and standards thereof.
Instead, and at least on this occasion, I demand that the VCNZ act
ethically, neutrally and responsibly to conduct a
comprehensive and honest investigation of the veterinary staff that participated in these decisions and actions.
I also hereby demand that detailed and comprehensive documentation of such investigation be recorded, and that it be released,
unredacted, for both my own, and public, scrutiny.
As an absolute minimum, such investigation must:
- Investigate the clinical justification for administering high-dose sedatives to a non-surgical, renal-compromised patient without owner consent – and further, without subsequent disclosure at the time of the repeated and sustained “euthanasia” push.
2. Audit the ICU culture at Massey that prioritises staff "tearoom" social interaction over the immediate welfare of distressed patients.
3. Hold the practitioners accountable for breaching Clauses 2.1 and 2.8 of the Code regarding accurate communication and informed consent.
**For an addition and specific list of Code, Standards and Ethics breaches identified:
Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of Veterinary Code.
I await advice of your having embarked on this investigation.
Notice of International Interest:
In the meantime, let it be noted that I have received emails from four other other veterinary regulatory or educational organisations internationally, each urging me to lay a formal complaint with you. I have also received an email from the Times Higher Education (THE) "Rankings" team, asking me to indicate if I wish them to enlist their in-house investigative journalists in the matter.
Under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, the Council’s role is to maintain public confidence in New Zealand's entire veterinary profession. A failure by the Veterinary Council to investigate systemic breaches and ethical failures of this documented magnitude would not only be a failure of your regulatory mandate, but would inevitably be perceived as institutional complicity by the international bodies now monitoring this case.
You would be failing the broader industry, your own charter, and the Council's reputation as a competent and ethical regulator.
Sincerely,
Jordan Kelly
Owner of Harry Kelly (Deceased following the clinical events and documented breaches detailed in this Letter)
