With A Fearless Pet Welfare Advocate for An Owner, Was Harry A Marked Dog?
Jordan Kelly • 20 January 2026

Did Holding Massey to Account for Negligence Lead to Their Decision to Catastrophically Overdose & Abuse My Dog, Then Dupe Me Into Consenting to His Death?

Above: 


While Harry's ophthalmologist and a small handful of ethical and competent operators appreciated my advocacy for Harry, and my focus on animal welfare and my love for dogs in general (one of many elements of this being my DoggieMamma.com community for fellow dog lovers), this enthusiasm for my advocacy wasn't shared universally.


And it certainly, by my experience, wasn't shared by Massey. I am left to wonder to what degree my precious little Harry paid the ultimate price with his chemically engineered "passing".


______________________________________________________________



Over the years, I have persistently advocated to Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital for improved standards and a cessation in their culture of arrogance and non-accountability.


The below email I sent to the 'Hospital's' and veterinary teaching facility's Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, is one such example.


I challenge Massey – from the Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, to the Head of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, to the incoming Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter - to publicly declare whether or not the below type of experience (which was always far from an isolated incident), and the culture that produced it, is acceptable in this supposedly international “gold standard” teaching institution.


Beause it’s not. Not from the perspective of the pet owner. And, by the way, the pet owner who pays outlandish and phenomenally inflated fees for the sort of "care" that resulted in the malpractice, the withholding of care after your administration of a contra-indicated cocktail of potentially lethal drugs to my beloved dog while you took eight observational videos of him (no doubt highly valuable "teaching aids"), your then fraudulent presentation of him to me as having "had a neurological event" requiring "urgent euthanasia" . . . and your coercion of his highly skeptical owner that was so prolonged and so intense that your objective was finally and regrettably achieved.


Equally unacceptable is institutional bias, or managerial or individual retribution . . . most especially when executed (literally) against an innocent animal . . . to whatever degree this was in any way a contributing factor in the decision to recklessly administer unauthorised repeat doses of contraindicated sedation to Harry, to then refuse to provide corrective emergency treatment, and then to misrepresent the cause of his resultant state to me as having had a "neurological event".


Was Harry a Target?
Investigating the Correlation Between Prior Complaints and the Sudden Push for 'Euthanasia'


I never held back in calling out the failures and other unacceptable attitudes and conducts of the University’s Companion Animal Hospital. Did that make Harry a marked dog? Ironically, his owner’s very maternal need to protect him, could potentially have been the very thing that painted a lethal target on his dear, innocent little head.


In the forensic investigation of any suspicious death, one must establish a motive. While the "how" of Harry’s death is found in the invoices and the unnecessarily administered,  heavy-duty, contraindicated drug cocktails, I'd like to see a genuinely independent investigation into to whether the "why" lay in the hospital’s long-standing resentment of an owner who refused to ignore their systemic failures.


Here's that example I promised (but there were numerous):


'Gold Standard' Fees vs (Very) Substandard 'Care'

 

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2024 10:45 am
To: Vet Clinic <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: (Harry's regular vet)
Subject: URGENT re Instructions for Harry's Care Ignored In-Hospital

 

TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE IN-HOSPITAL / ICU CARE FACILITY:

 

With regard to Harry’s 3-hour in-hospital stay yesterday afternoon, please refer to the below/earlier-emailed care instructions and special notes that I emailed yesterday morning, prior to my leaving Masterton to travel to Massey i.e. see these in the email trail below this email, sent at 9.05am by me to the Hospital yesterday.

 

Note also, that these instructions were discussed and reinforced in considerable detail to Chris during the admission consultation, and I have no reason to believe that they would not have been passed on.

 

Thus, I seek (firstly) an explanation as to the obviousness of his urgent need to urinate and desperate need to drink upon my collection of him later that afternoon. (Of course, I have no idea whether my other instructions were similarly ignored.)

 

Owners’ Instructions Should Not Be Considered ‘Optional’ & Certainly Basic Standards of In-Hospital Care Should Not Be, Either

 

In addition to the instructions conveyed about making sure he had regular toilet outings given his need to drink regularly (in turn, related to his elevated kidney readings), I had explained that he often needs some reasonable degree of walking around before he actually lifts his leg and goes. I asked that all of this be passed on, in detail.

 

Upon collection, he urinated immediately and long, in a manner that clearly indicated he had been holding on for some considerable time (as he will not willingly wet in a cage or his bed). Certainly, there was none of his normal “sorting out where to go” behaviour. He was clearly desperate.

 

Likewise, he was also desperate for water. Because it had not occurred to me that, after my multiple advices relating to the need for regular water consumption (at his own comfortable pace), that this would not have happened, I did not equate his desperately seeking my attention all the way home to Masterton, as his being in urgent need of water. When we arrived home, he drank a volume of water so large, that I do not recall his ever drinking so much in one go. In fact, it was more than one go: He drank a huge volume of water in an urgent manner, and then regrouped and returned immediately to the large bowl and drank more. It was clear that he was suffering intense thirst.

 

This would be an unacceptable situation even in a veterinary general practice. It is BEYOND unacceptable (a) in what is considered to be one of New Zealand’s premier specialist veterinary hospitals, (b) in that Hospital’s ICU facility, and (c) with the added consideration of my emphatic and detailed instructions around these matters, both in writing and verbally – which included emphasis on the fact that Harry has elevated kidney readings, and clearly, ready and regular water intake and toileting (with patience) are non-negotiable and essential aspects of his required care.

 

Neurologist ‘In Such A Hurry’

 

Secondly, the purpose of Harry’s first visit to the Hospital yesterday was for a neurological examination with a specialist neurologist. With regard to the issue of a possible chemical exposure (key phrase: “rain water tank”) – a discussion arising from a question asked of me at his general practice and additionally relevant to the inclusion of “infectious disease” testing that I queried as having been included in the referral documentation from Massey’s end – I explained a scenario that had taken place at my previous property. Chris said the perfect person to put this question to, was the neurologist – and that this would be done during his exam later that afternoon.

 

When I returned I enquired as to the neurologist’s answer to this question. But the question had not been put, because the neurologist “was in such a hurry”.

 

What  – I would ask – is that? The neurological specialist – whose hands my dog’s life is currently in, for attendance by whom I traveled from Masterton to Palmerston North, and for whose un-rushed care, assessment and expertise I am paying a significant fee for, was “in a hurry”? Please explain. Was a full, un-rushed, thorough and diligent, all-bases-covered examination conducted? (NB: It was not explained to me why I was not asked to be present during the neurological examination, nor even to meet the specialist for whose services I am paying. Was this because she was “in a hurry”?)

 

Observed Variance in Hospital Personnel Care Factor

 

I would note that – when I returned to the Hospital for Harry’s 4.30pm collection – I was early and remained in my car for some minutes. I was parked in front of a fenced-in grass area that appeared to be the toileting arena. Two staff (vets? Vet nurses? One of each?) were there with a dog wearing a collar. One was walking the dog around, with the objective appearing to have been trying to get him to toilet and also enticing him to eat treats or a small amount of food.

 

As I was parked directly in front of this activity, I could not help but observe it: One of the staff, who was holding his lead initially, was completely uninterested. She was distracted (although not by anything in particular). Before long, she uninterestedly handed the dog’s lead over to her colleague, who was her polar opposite. The other staff member was caring, attentive and earnestly attempting to interest the dog (who was wearing a collar) in eating.

 

Perhaps it is this marked variance in “care factor” by which the negligence in Harry’s care is explainable.

 

Either my instructions weren’t conveyed, or they were conveyed to a staff member or staff members who weren’t listening, didn’t care, and/or considered an owner’s instructions as optional. In which case, at the very least, the principles and practices of good in-hospital care should have been applied, as the most basic and reasonable standard of care during hospitalisation. (In this regard, I would point out that if Massey charges in the vicinity of $2k for an overnight stay in ICU, and an owner cannot even be assured – in truth – of the most basic standard of care for their pet, the owner is certainly far better to provide it themselves at home.)

 

Accountability Sought

 

I would ask that whomever is responsible for the monitoring and management of personnel staffing the ICU (“intensive care”) hospital facility conduct an urgent and thorough assessment of exactly the degree to which the requisite care is (or isn’t) being provided.

 

Similarly, I would ask that there be standards of “non-hurry” applied to any specialist consultation / examination – and most especially to those that have direct relevance to a potential life-or-death situation.

 

In consideration that Harry will be undergoing an MRI this afternoon, and of course, the necessary general anaesthetic, and another period of ICU care until he is (hopefully) released back into my care tonight, I would like a response from hospital management to these very valid and urgent concerns, please.

 

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly


Below:  Basic hydration (and regular toileting) are clinical requirements, not optional extras (or they shouldn't be).

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

UP NEXT: 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 .)

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

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

Open Letter to Incoming Massey VC, Pierre Venter: Will You Clean Up the Lethal Levels of Incompetence, Clinical Negligence & Undisclosed Procedures on Clients' Pets?

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

Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me

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.
Show More