This series, 'THE KILLING OF HARRY', is a progressive investigative journey, diving into the very questionable actions and culture of Massey University's 'Companion Animal Hospital'. It began as an inquiry into a tragic veterinary error - together with the subsequent lethal cover-up - and has evolved into a forensic examination of malpractice and ethics concerns, and institutional secrecy. The following article represents the latest, and most disturbing (indeed, chilling), chapter of this investigation. It is presented as the foundational hypothesis - the "Read This First" anchor - because, at this stage, it provides the only logical framework that reconciles all the conflicting evidence discovered to date.
___________________________
Clinical Malpractice Is One Thing. Cold Observation of Its Unmitigated Consequences Is Quite Another.
Clinical malpractice is a tragedy of error. But the evidence uncovered in this investigation suggests a more deliberate institutional "teaching" practice: the unconsented use of a private pet for the "Serial Observational Documentation" of an unnecessarily-administered lethal combination of sedating agents contraindicated to the recipient's specific, known condition.
In trying to uncover what really happened to my deeply loved pet papillon, Harry, in the face of a diagnosis that made no sense at the time, and a clinical path that my research has demonstrated was a case of fundamental malpractice, it is now incumbent upon me to look at the most plausible clinical explanation for the evidence at hand.
The central question of this investigation has become:
Was Harry a victim of an error (albeit so fundamental as to be incomprehensible), or the subject of "teaching opportunity", one "interesting" enough to have withheld the lifesaving treatment the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital could still have provided after their atrocious and potentially lethal "convenience-sedation" of him?
The current evidence suggests a chilling possibility: that once the "error" of administering drugs well-known as contraindicated to a kidney-compromised dog
(with fresh test results on hand confirming his status as exactly that) was made, the institution may have chosen to document the results for teaching purposes rather than intervene to save him.
The Evidence of Observation
Massey University has been forced to respond to a formal Privacy Act request for Harry's records.
In doing so, they have admitted to the existence of
EIGHT videos taken of Harry during his 15-hour stay. They have released only two. The remaining six are withheld, with the claim that I must view them only on-site due to "privacy concerns" regarding staff - despite the fact that their own
IT and Digital Media Department could easily pixelate such details.
One must ask: Why were eight videos taken of a small dog admitted for a routine rehydration procedure? Hardly a subject or procedure of fascination.
In the absence of a transparent explanation, the most logical clinical conclusion is that Harry was being used for the
Serial Observational Documentation of a progressive drug reaction . . . with the related plan put in place to convey a false diagnosis (one mimicked by the drug in question) to the owner, as the justification for the sudden need for the urgent "euthanasia" of her beloved dog. A dog she had delivered 15 hours prior for a straightforward rehydration procedure.
The Evidence of Reclassification
This "observational" theory provides the first clear explanation for the many anomalies surrounding Harry’s remains.
If you have read the previous articles in this series, you will know that the cremation company, Pet Farewells, made two startling admissions:
- They were told by Massey that I "didn't want Harry back". (Stunning, in the face of my having been prepared to have him transported long distance for cremation in an individual chamber cremator to ensure I received his, and only his, ashes back.)
- They "picked him up with all the other post-mortems".
Both were rapidly retracted as "slips of the tongue". And while I couldn't connect either to any semblance of logic at the time, my continuing research into what really befell Harry in what I can only now view as a veterinary house of horrors - Massey University's inaptly named Companion Animal "Hospital" - they would suggest a very likely unthinkable reality.
By moving Harry from a "Private Client Stream" to an
"Institutional Stream", his status would have changed from a beloved pet to a clinical specimen. One of the many and varied anomalies that would explain is hat of the "bag" vs the "burrito".
While a staff member provided me with a comforting story of Harry being "burrito’d" in his blanket with his toys, Pet Farewells confirmed in writing that he arrived
"tucked up in the bag he was given to us in." That revelation would suggest that he was not placed in a bag by the
courier; rather, that he was handed over as a bagged specimen - the standard protocol for institutional batch processing.
A Total Collapse of Institutional and Professional Ethics
The reclassification of a living pet into a "drug reaction observation" status
(subsequently presented to his owner under the false pretences of a false diagnosis requiring urgent "euthanasia"), followed by a "discarded data point" for batch collection, constitutes a massive failure of clinical, institutional, and - for all management and staff privy to it - individual ethics.
It also breaches the most basic of professional standards, including but not limited to:
- Breach of
the Veterinary Council of New Zealand
(VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct Clause 2.4 (Second Opinions and Referrals):
The Code explicitly states that veterinarians must recognise a client's right to a second opinion.
By creating a sense of "massive urgency" to euthanise based on a false narrative, the institution effectively obstructed the opportunity for an independent assessment, which is a fundamental right of the animal's owner.
- Breach of VCNZ Code Clause 1.4 (Honest and Effective Communication):
This clause requires veterinarians to provide information that a reasonable person would need to make an informed decision.
Coercing a client into a euthanasia decision while concealing the fact that the animal was suffering from an unconsented, unmanaged drug reaction - rather than a natural decline - is a total collapse of this duty and fundamental ethic.
- Breach of VCNZ Code Clause 1.1 (Animal Welfare as the First Consideration):
Choosing to document a terminal reaction for "teaching" purposes rather than enabling a second opinion or taking immediate, aggressive clinical action to reverse a known error is a fundamental betrayal of the veterinary oath.
- The Communication of a False Diagnosis:
Providing a misleading narrative to the owner that obscures the reality of the contraindicated drug administration and subsequent "observation" status, rather than providing the honest disclosure required for informed consent.
- Failure to Administer Life-Saving Treatment:
The intentional choice to prioritise "Serial Observational Documentation" over either (a) life-saving intervention, or (b) the stabilisation of the patient, in order to allow the owner to obtain an independent second opinion.
- Consumer Guarantees Act Violation:
A failure to provide veterinary services with "reasonable care and skill", and a total failure to maintain a transparent, professional chain of custody.
- Privacy Act Breach:
The ongoing obstruction and withholding of the six (6) videos that document this "observation" period.
My investigations and my questions - much to the unexpected dismay of the parties - will continue.
Every stonewalled communication only serves to reinforce the necessity of this investigation.
My precious little boy died a
horrible death, and an
unnecessary death.
If the only way to honour him now is to dig out the dark truth hidden in the Massey University veterinary teaching hospital's back-of-house operations, then that is a mission to which I am tenaciously committed.
Massey sacrificed Harry. So Massey can now look forward to sacrificing its undeserved, marketing-based "gold standard" image with unsuspecting pet owners . . . in the interests of ensuring that if they allow their own beloved animals through those ICU doors, they know
exactly what the risks are.
POSTSCRIPT 1:
As Harry's deeply devoted "Mummy", I feel absolutely beyond nauseous writing this. But I owe it to Harry, I owe it to my readers, and I most certainly owe it to other pet owners who would want the informed ability to make an educated "risk-to-reward" judgement when faced with Massey's veterinary teaching hospital as an ICU option.
POSTSCRIPT 2:
While the primary evidence suggests they opportunistically observed Harry's suffering after a fundamental and catastrophic error was made, I am forced to remain open to an even darker possibility: that given Harry’s age, his comorbidities, and my history as a "persistent thorn" in the side of the Companion Animal Hospital's management (for my having multiple times documented their negligence), his "selection" for this catastrophic "error" may not have been an error at all, but planned from the moment he entered the ward - or very shortly thereafter.
