The publication of 'The Killing of Harry Kelly' series has established a forensic fact-pattern that the veterinary sector can no longer ignore.
The next stage of my investigative and revelatory work will involve collating these findings into a
International Veterinary Ethics Discussion Document for international bodies. This document will serve as a live demonstration of the systemic failures currently under discussion in the broader veterinary sector, specifically regarding
Moral Injury and the erosion of
Clinical Autonomy within corporate structures.
The Architect of the Outcome
In the international conversation regarding "Moral Injury" (as highlighted in the
2025 BVA Congress sessions on "Everyday Ethical Challenges"), there is a tendency to suggest that individuals are merely forced into unethical actions by a "toxic culture".
I must be absolutely clear:
I am not offering an excuse for the clinician involved. To the contrary: The individual who took fraudulently coerced me into allowing her to end Harry's life was the subject of my intuition screaming at me at the time;
intuition very often being a more reliable assessor circumstances in play LINK than the conscious mind - and certainly when under pressure and coercion..
This deceptive veterinary "professional" acted with unfettered deception and a fatal disregard for Harry’s life.
The "glee" I perceived her obtaining from her "achievement" aligns with what research in
Veterinary Science (Sept 2024) identifies as a "transgressive act of commission". This wasn't a professional under duress; it was a clear and present demonstration of the
"betrayal by trusted others" that defines the most severe cases of institutional moral injury.
My
previous analysis ([Link: My Intuition Article]) confirms this was a calculated objective, not a systemic accident.
Watchdogs or Guard Dogs?
The next phase of the ongoing mission I am now committed to, will involve close observation of regulatory bodies, specifically the
Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ).
International journals like
Veterinary Record (2023-2025) have increasingly examined how the "corporatisation" of medicine creates environments where institutional "convenience" overrides ethical standards.
The VCNZ now faces a choice:
Will they continue to function as "guard dogs" for their industry colleagues? Or will they adopt the "watchdog" role required to address these documented
Potentially Morally Injurious Events (PMIEs)
. . . a role they are handsomely salaried to perform?
A Final Message of Intent
To Massey, to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and to "Steffi", the vet who achieved her "objective" at the
unnecessary cost of Harry’s life ([Link: It Was NOT Euthanasia]) and
my peace of mind for the rest of mine ([Link: Victim Impact Statement]), you can place firm store in this personal and professional message from me, to each of you:
I’m not going away. I’m going global.
I owe it to Harry, to myself, and to other vulnerable pets and their devoted owners - not just those at-risk clients of Massey University and its veterinary teaching facility, the so-called Companion Animal "Hospital". Not just pet owners around New Zealand. But
all pet owners internationally.
I also owe it to the more principled vets who genuinely
are "morally injured" by the clinic and veterinary corporate environments whose cultures act as petri dishes in which they knowingly grow this kind of dangerous toxicity and its deeply regrettable and irreversible outcomes.
Cover Letter:
To:
Iain McLachlan, CEO, Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ)
Chair, Massey University Animal Ethics Committee
Chief Executive, British Veterinary Association (BVA) — Specifically regarding the 2025 Moral Injury Congress
President, World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Ethics Committee
Chair, American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Council on Ethics
CEO, New Zealand Insurance Ombudsman
The intended cover letter - currently in draft form - that will accompany the International Veterinary Ethics Discussion Document - is as follows:
Dear [Name],
I am writing to formally submit for your review,
The Harry Kelly Accountability Project, a 16-part forensic audit and international veterinary ethics discussion document.
This submission provides a horrific, real-time demonstration of the systemic failures currently under scrutiny within the international veterinary sector. While centered on a single case study - the clinical killing of my dog, Harry, at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital in Palmerston North, New Zealand - the findings establish a forensic fact-pattern of institutional fraud, deceptive clinical assessments, and a catastrophic erosion of professional standards.
The Context of Institutional Failure
The international veterinary community is currently grappling with a growing crisis of
Moral Injury and the corporatisation of clinical ethics.
As highlighted in recent sessions at the
2025 BVA Congress and studies in
Veterinary Science (2024), "transgressive acts of commission" and "betrayal by trusted others" are now recognised as primary drivers of systemic collapse.
This document serves as empirical evidence of those theories in practice.
It lays out:
- Forensic Auditing of Clinical Billing: Documenting discrepancies between billed "ICU-level care" and the actual clinical state of the patient - both related, and in addition, to its provocation by the unnecessary and unauthorised administration of knowingly contra-indicated convenience sedation (with no relationship to the reason for admission), the withholding of information regarding the true reason for Harry's suddenly catastrophically altered presentation, and the provision of a false diagnosis to coerce "euthanasia" to obscure the living evidence and prevent discovery by the possible involvement of an external veterinarian.
- Analysis of Clinical Coercion: Examining the manipulation of owner consent through the withholding of critical physiological data.
- The Individual as Architect: Identifying the specific behaviours of clinicians who function not as victims of a toxic culture, but as its primary enforcers.
A Call for Watchdogs, Not Guard Dogs
Regulatory bodies frequently face the criticism of acting as "guard dogs" for the industry rather than "watchdogs" for the public interest.
This submission is provided to your organisation to remove any plausible deniability regarding these practices.
The Harry Kelly Accountability Project is now moving into a phase of global distribution. I am providing this record to your committee/office with the expectation that it will be formally logged and reviewed as part of your ongoing commitment to clinical transparency and veterinary ethics.
I look forward to your acknowledgment of receipt and any subsequent commentary on the issues raised.
On a personal note, I would point out that pet owners appear to generally be viewed and treated by regulatory organisations with dismissive contempt, in equal proportion to the expendable position taken towards their pets by some veterinarians - and, in my experience, especially the veterinarian documented in this case and in the case of Massey University and its veterinary teaching facility.
It should be further noted that a refusal to acknowledge and address these issues and this type of attitude, practice and culture, is an unfortunate and collusive permission for the continuation of the same in veterinary teaching facilities - and thus the indefinite perpetuation of them into the veterinary sector at large, as graduates immersed in these cultures are released into clinics around the world.
The Necessarily Realistic View of this Document & The Dossier It Comprises
In reviewing the enclosed dossier, you will find a deliberate duality of tone.
Some articles and coverage are presented with a forensic competence that I trust you will find professionally rigorous.
Others, however, speak with the unvarnished voice of a grieving owner whose beloved pet was subjected to a wrongfully coerced and unnecessary execution based on a fraudulent diagnosis used as a cover for malpractice (possibly intentional) - an act in which I was deceived into participating, and in the most horrific and traumatising manner imaginable.
I strongly encourage you
not
to dismiss the forensic weight of this project based on the presence of the latter category of articles. It is precisely these pieces that provide the necessary counterbalance to the industry's entrenched tendency to prioritise only that which is presented in a cold and clinical manner. The cold, clinical record is not the lived experience, nor is it the enduring impact on the pet and his or her owner.
In closing, I must remind the industry’s regulators - regardless of geography - that you do not exist to protect clinical records; you exist to protect pets and their owners. There is no logical reason for any avoidance of the emotional cost to these biological parties when subjected to the wrongful and unethical conduct of clinicians and their institutional masters.
That cost is (or
should be) the very foundational basis for your oversight and the primary driver for any meaningful improvement in international veterinary ethics.
Sincerely,
Jordan Kelly
The Harry Kelly Accountability Project [Link to The Customer Article Series]
