The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) Planned for Mid-2026 Launch

Announcing the intended mid-2026 launch of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) . . . a totally industry-independent and academia-independent organisation that will call loudly, ongoingly and increasingly for genuine transparency and accountability, and improved ethics, in the veterinary profession.

The current landscape of veterinary oversight is built upon a fundamental, structural paradox. While academic bodies - such as university ethics committees - exist in abundance, their ability to be truly effective is fundamentally flawed.

Similarly to supposed "regulatory" and industry watchdog organisations who are managed by the industry colleagues of the very practitioners whose standards and ethics they are charged with overseeing, so too are "ethics committees" conceived and populated by the same academic milieu and institutional architecture that spawns the very practitioners whose (often derailed) moral compass they are tasked with monitoring.

This incestuousness very frequently creates an unworkable (for those seeking genuine investigation, objective complaint handling, and justice) environment of protectionist cronyism, in which "standard"-setters and regulatory personnel lack the courage and moral fortitude to prosecute their industry colleagues. This, in place of the required environment of genuine accountability for veterinary institutions, practices and clinicians.

When a practitioner’s moral compass becomes derailed - resulting in, by way of a horrific demonstration of institutional malpractice, deception and a resultant, coerced "euthanasia" by a country's supposedly "gold standard" teaching "hospital" , Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital - the institutional apparatus is designed to absorb the shock, protect the "brand", and shield its agents from the consequences of their actions.

'Ethics Committees' As Branding Exercises and Regulatory Bodies As Old Boys' (& Girls') Networks

The same systemic failure applies to the veterinary industry’s regulatory organisations. They are peer-reviewed, peer-governed, and peer-protected . . . while the output of "ethics committees" - if not their very existence - are more marketing-value branding exercises than non-negotiable, enforceable standards.

Blatantly lacking are the very inputs that count the most (after those of the animals themselves): those of the pet owners, or "pet parents", as we see ourselves.

Yet WE are the stakeholders who provide the love, who provide the life-long care, and who (usually with great financial pain and sacrifice) represent the financial lifeblood of the broader veterinary industry. But in the sterile halls of academia and regulation, our voices are treated as secondary emotional noise rather than primary ethical stakeholders.

The Catalyst for IIIVE

IIIVE's formation was catalysed by the horrific deception by a veterinarian and associated personnel at New Zealand's Massey University Companion Animal Hospital, that culminated in their regrettable coercion of me to allow - and even to submit to the veterinarian's instruction to forcefully participate in - the unnecessary clinical killing of my own precious little dog (under the guise of a necessary "euthanasia", that was, in reality, the destruction of the evidence of an incomprehensible degree of multifaceted malpractice).

Thus, this pet owner is establishing, and will become the Executive Director of, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE).

_______________

"I have brought myself, by long meditation, to the conviction that a human being with a settled purpose must accomplish it, and that nothing can resist a will which will stake even existence upon its fulfillment."

— Benjamin Disraeli

____________

Why the International Institute for Improved Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) is Not 'Just Another Ethics Committee'

It is essential to the foundational purpose of the Institute that IIIVE not be seen as just one more largely ineffective, academia-based, or sold-out-to-industry "ethics committee".

These bodies lack the one thing required for true reform: the raw, unvarnished insight into the very human, and the very lasting, impacts of breached - or, in the case that has given birth to the IIIVE, totally absent - ethics at both the institutional and individual veterinarian levels.

To understand the necessity of this Institute, one must look at the clinical and spiritual wreckage left in the wake of Massey's failure:

The Five Pillars of Purpose

1. Absolute Independence from Industry or Institutional Influence

IIIVE operates entirely outside the academic-industrial complex.

To ensure uncompromised oversight, the Institute rejects any funding, sponsorship, or "expert" collaboration from universities, veterinary associations, or corporate pharmaceutical entities.

This structural independence is a prerequisite; it ensures the Institute answers to no board but only to the facts, free from the institutional self-protection that paralyses existing committees and regulatory organisations.

2. Fact-Based Empowerment of the Pet Parent as Arbiter of Ethics

The Institute centralises the pet parent as the primary authority in the veterinary relationship.

However (and as is the root of Pillar 3), true ethical boundaries can only be directed by an owner who has been provided with accurate information, strictly free from clinical coercion, pressure, or the exertion of professional preference.

Historically, veterinary "ethics" has been the product of closed loop discussions and decisions between practitioners and their peers. IIIVE shifts this governing authority back to the people who provide the care and the love to the animals that are the very reason for being of the veterinary industry, and from whose wallets is extracted the financial lifeblood of that industry.

3. Clinical Record Transparency

We assert that clinical records are the property of the owner.

IIIVE champions the non-negotiable right to access full, unadulterated, contemporaneous veterinary data, rejecting the "sanitised summary" as a tool of institutional obfuscation.

To bridge the gap between technical jargon and reality, the Institute facilitates the Owner’s Audit protocol. This methodology involves the retrieval of raw notes, independent technical translation, and a contrast audit to expose discrepancies between a clinic’s verbal narrative and its recorded actions, ensuring transparency in both clinical performance and in fee charging.

4. Accountability & Global Reputational Consequence

When local regulatory bodies are too closely aligned with the institutions they are mandated to monitor, IIIVE bypasses them.

We leverage independent publishing and targeted international distribution to ensure that local clinical failures carry global consequences.

Under our Reporting and Response Protocol, the Institute receives concerns from pet parents and, with permission, presents them directly to the subject veterinarian or clinic. The subsequent response - or the notable absence thereof - is published in full, placing institutional conduct under the light of global peer and public scrutiny.

5. Economic Justice & Accessibility of Veterinary Care

IIIVE stands in absolute opposition to financial opportunism and the institutionalisation of predatory pricing. We audit and expose billing practices that unreasonably prioritise corporate profit margins over patient access.

We reject any economic model that defaults to price-fixing or restricts veterinary care to the affluent. Further, we hold that it is a violation of fundamental ethics to prey upon the vulnerability and emotional distress of pet owners.

The Institute identifies and exposes unconscionable conduct. That is, the exploitation of pet parents (including and especially in moments of crisis and critical decision-making, whether this applies collectively or individually) who may be in no position to protect their own interests, and who may find themselves subject to untenable decisions by virtue of generally predatory pricing practices or real-time financial opportunism.

READERS & INTERESTED PET PARENTS: The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) will be the subject of progressive structural establishment and a phased public-facing roll-out. The Customer & The Constituent team looks forward to bringing you regular progress reports.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Massey’s Vet ‘Hospital’ Staffed by Unqualified Juniors Administering Drugs At Will, Committing Serious Animal Cruelty, Falsifying Diagnoses, Records & Coercing 'Euthanasia'

by Jordan Kelly • 15 March 2026

Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.

UPDATED 10.3.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations?

by Jordan Kelly • 10 March 2026

UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?

FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Compromised Veterinary Regulatory & Accreditation 'System'

by Jordan Kelly • 8 March 2026

Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin

IN PROGRESS: How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate

by Jordan Kelly • 4 March 2026

Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

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.

(UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest

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 .

CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey

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 )

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

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

Massey University's Upside-Down Prioritisation of Taxpayer Funds: Fiscal Malfeasance & the TRUE Cost of Institutional Arrogance

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.

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

by Jordan Kelly • 8 February 2026

An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)

Morality through Transparency:

Restoring Sovereignty & Control to the Pet Parent