The Criticality of ALWAYS Obtaining A Second (& Third) Opinion Before Agreeing to 'Euthanase' Your Pet
Jordan Kelly • 16 January 2026

Being Refused the Right of A Second, External Opinion Cost My Beloved Dog His Life . . . Quite Unnecessarily


FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE. MY STRONG ADVICE TO FELLOW PET PARENTS: AVOID MASSEY UNIVERSITY'S COMPANION ANIMAL 'HOSPITAL' AT ALL COSTS & THIS 'VET' IN PARTICULAR.

Being refused the right of a second, external opinion cost my precious little Harry his life . . . and quite unnecessarily so.


The tragic irony is, that if I had not been under such duress from the sustained, merciless coercion to allow this incredibly eager Massey ICU "vet", "Steffi", to "terminate" him, and if I'd been given the space (especially since I multiple times indicated to them that I was, at the time, grossly sleep-deprived; it's even in the vet's own Clinical Summary!), to think objectively enough for it to have occurred to me to take Harry away from Massey and seek a second opinion, even if just from the nearest local vet clinic, that second, independent vet would have:


(a)  seen immediately that the reality of Harry's "condition" was that he had actually been (very heavily) sedated and had almost certainly not suffered the "neurological event" that they had misrepresented him to me as having had ), and

(b)
  sought his notes in real time from Massey, which would also have resulted in the discovery that Massey ICU staff had given him repeated doses of a contraindicated convenience sedative, totaling a cumulative 500% - 750% overdosing and cumulative toxic load approaching a near-coma outcome.


Thus, if there was the possibility of an outside veterinarian being able to assist Harry’s system to purge itself of the massive overdosing, Harry would be sitting here in my office with me now.


Note, though, that in my headline for his article, I have referred to “& A Third Opinion", If Necessary. The reason: I do not have faith in the professional “courage” of all vets to speak against the all-powerful institution that in most instances trained them, and that is seen as the “authority on all things veterinary” in New Zealand.


New Zealand has a thriving and long-surviving loyalty network – one that's based not only on (often misplaced) loyalty, but in some instances, worse still, on pure professional cowardliness.


This "loyalty network" creates a vacuum where accountability goes to die.


The Second (Or Third) Opinion Is Your RIGHT & Their OBLIGATION


In an environment where the "gold standard" marketing facade is used as a shield rather than a yardstick, the client’s right to a second opinion is often treated as a nuisance or an act of disloyalty to the clinician, rather than the vital clinical safeguard it is recognised to be internationally.


To 'Steffi':  As Inconvenient As They Would Have Been in Light of Your Determined Objective, Did You Never Learn of Your Obligations Under International 'Best Practice' Codes of Conduct?


UPDATE FEBRUARY 14th:  "STEFFI" DIDN'T WANT ME GETTING ANY SECOND OPINIONS. WHY, VERY SPECIFICALLY? READ THE HORRIFYING REASONS HERE. THEY ARE FAR WORSE EVEN THAN ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. HARRY HAD NOT ONLY BEEN CATASTROPHICALLY AND REPEATEDLY OVERDOSED WITH A "CONVENIENCE" SEDATING COCKTAIL, HE HAD BEEN DESIGNATED TO BECOME A LAB RAT FOR A STUDENT CELL PHONE FILM FESTIVAL, AFTER WHICH THE PLAN WAS TO DISPOSE OF HIM.


Under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Code of Professional Conduct - a standard Massey claims to emulate - the duty to facilitate a second opinion is NOT optional.


Section 1.1 explicitly states: "Veterinary surgeons should facilitate a client's request for a referral or second opinion."


Crucially, in a euthanasia context, international best practice demands a "Clinical Pause".


When a client is under extreme psychological duress, the AAHA (American Animal Hospital Association) End-of-Life Care Guidelines mandate a collaborative partnership.


This partnership requires the veterinarian to ensure the owner is not making a terminal decision under "distress-induced tunnel vision".


If there is even a shadow of doubt (and, By God, I repeatedly expressed far more than a shadow of doubt both on the nearly one-hour shock phone call in which this "Steffi" made it her mission to wear me down and the probably more than one additional hour she spent coercing me upon my arrival, including the psychological ploy of bringing him into the consulting room with the completely unauthorised infrastructure of euthanasia already implanted in his leg)  as there clearly was with Harry’s "vocalisations" and physical strength - the international standard is to facilitate a second opinion proactively to ensure the integrity of the decision.


But "Steffi" did the opposite. She accelerated. She intensified. And she was relentless.


By failing to suggest a "Clinical Pause" - and by actively instructing me to "hold him down" during his screams and his powerful kicks when he showed signs of starting to push his way out of his heavily (undisclosed by "Steffi") sedated state - Massey and Steffi didn't just breach the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999; they violated the very "international gold standard" they point to liberally in their marketing.


True excellence in veterinary medicine is not measured by the size of the hospital, but by the courage of the clinicians to say:

"You are in distress. Let's get a fresh set of
external, independent eyes (in this case, given my extreme doubt and active and repeated objections, from what should have been a clinic entirely outside the Massey umbrella and its professional loyalty loops) -  on this before we do something that cannot be undone."


Massey’s failure to do so confirms they are not an institution of healing, but an institution of ego, incompetence and deceptiveness - one where the "loyalist network" is more important than the life of a precious little blind dog entrusted to their "care" and who was unnecessarily and (undisclosed to his owner) catastrophically over-sedated . . . and who was screaming to be heard. 


Read also:


ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?

Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice Demonstrates Fraudulent Killing of Harry Kelly

NOT ‘Euthanasia’ . . . A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences

 The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death


Or read the entire 'The Killing of Harry Kelly' Series here.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
by Jordan Kelly 31 January 2026
From Lethal Incompetence and Malpractice . . . to Withholding of Life-Saving Corrective Action in Favour of Utilisation As A Teaching Aid . . . to A Fraudulent Diagnosis . . . to A Coerced 'Euthanasia' to Destroy the Evidence . . . to Management Malfeasance At the Highest Levels
by Jordan Kelly 31 January 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE : (Note to Readers: Nil response to the below. Looks like the New VC's modus operandi is not about to differ from the institutional stonewalling of the entrenched Massey suits . . . with the culture he has inherited obviously causing him no concern.) Plea to New Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, for Cultural Change & Institutional Integrity in the Interests of Pets, Owners & the Ethics Instilled In Future Veterinarians
30 January 2026
Bring It On, Huxley, Dean of 'Veterinary School'. Exposing the Realities of Your 'School' Is the Hill I've Chosen to Die on. So It's the Courage of My Convictions vs the Size of Your Legal Budget.
by Jordan Kelly 30 January 2026
A VITAL & URGENT WARNING TO PET PARENTS EVERYWHERE
Show More