Your Choice of Vet Could Be A Life or Death Decision

Vet Practice Dispenses Potentially Fatal Double-Dose Heart Medication

Here’s how it went down.

I had just moved to Masterton (in the weeks leading up to Christmas). My regular vet practice is actually Totally Vets in Feilding – and I’m a huge fan of my dog’s actual veterinarian there, one Julia Giles. Unlike other experiences leading up to bringing my precious pooch into her care, she is diligent, thorough, caring – and while she’s a fully conventionally trained vet, she is not mentally closed off to holistic / natural treatment possibilities and efficacies. So, in short, regardless of the distance I must travel for consultations, my dog is staying in her care.

Notwithstanding, I sought to establish a secondary relationship with a local vet practice in Masterton for the purpose of (a) having a local point of dispense for my dog’s heart medication, and (b) having immediate access to a vet for emergencies.

While I experienced certain instances of incompetence in my attempts to do so with the local practice I chose to contact, these pale into insignificance in light of the most egregious of them all: the errant dispense of a double dose of my small, 6kg dog’s all-important heart medication.

Having gone through some rigamarole revolving largely around my insistence that I would NOT be changing my primary vet, I finally got this local practice to agree to the simple request of fulfilling a repeat prescription for my dog’s heart medication – a prescription duly forwarded to the practice by my primary vets i.e. TVG in Feilding.

I then visited the practice to collect my dog’s heart medication prescription.

Although I normally would not have done so, “something within” (and maybe the other lesser displays of incompetence) prompted me to open the bag and check the label on the box.

What Part of '2.5mg is NOT 1.25mg' Don’t They Understand?

To my concern, I could clearly see that the box itself read “Vetmedin 2.5mg”, despite this Masterton vet's print-out label showing the prescribed Vetmedin 1.25mg. In other words, despite the box containing double the strength of the heart medication that my own vet had prescribed (and which he has been on for several years), it had been labelled errantly as though the box contained the correct/prescribed strength of the medication. Which it did not. It contained TWICE the prescribed strength of capsule.

To be additionally noted, in an earlier phone call prior to my own vet emailing this repeat prescription to this local vet practice, I had actually been asked by the local vet practice’s receptionist which strength my dog was on, and I’d told her to wait for the prescription to arrive and to read it carefully and please ensure that I was being dispensed the correct dosage of capsule.

Standing at the counter now, I drew this double dosage being dispensed (as clearly showing on the box for anyone caring to actually read it) to the receptionists’ attention and asked for an explanation, stressing the potential implications of this act of gross incompetence i.e. dispensing a double-dose of a small and fragile dog’s prescribed strength of heart medication.

The response was that “it wasn’t me who dispensed it”. I responded that it didn’t matter to me what staff member dispensed it, the mistake was made by the same practice and stood to have the same ramifications for my dog, had I not noticed this error.

The explanation finally offered, without due concern, was that they “only had chewables in the prescribed strength”. Thus, some incompetent had taken it upon themselves to decide – since capsules had been prescribed – to simply dispense the strength of capsules that they had in stock (and label them incorrectly, as though they were as prescribed, despite the fact that they were double the prescription strength).

I pressed the issue of the (potentially fatal) consequences of this uneducated and unwarranted “judgement call”.

‘Just’ Human Error (like, No Biggie)

The response was a defensive and dismissive, “It was human error.” The inference was “just” i.e. “just” human error. No biggie.

There was a refusal to give me the box (reason: it had to be “returned to the supplier”; why?), but I reached over and took the now-empty box (as evidence) off the counter anyway and promptly left.

You’ll see from the photograph illustrating this article, that the printing on the box shows abundantly clearly that its contents are “2.5mg” capsules. That’s right there in large, bold type on the box. However, immediately below it, is the vet practice’s applied print-out label, showing 1.25mg. You will also see that the frequency of dosage is as per the prescription i.e. twice daily. Thus, had I not noticed this dispensing error, I would have been giving my dog a double-dose of the medication twice daily.

It was a dangerous act of incompetence that – if not detected by a diligent owner – could have cost my beloved dog his life.

Several Prompts to the Vet Clinic Later . . .

Returning home, I thought about not only the potentially fatal dispensing error (and the several pre-prompts to this vet clinic regarding the importance of accuracy), but also the casual, seemingly unconcerned nature of the way in which this, again, potentially-fatal act of incompetence had been treated.

In the interests of other unsuspecting pet owners and their treasured and defenceless pets, I therefore decided to make a formal complaint to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

I wrote a full account of the matter, attached to my email a photograph of the plainly mis-labeled heart medication (i.e. showing the printing on the box as 2.5mg, and immediately below it, the vet's own labeling of "1.25mg" i.e. in accordance with my own vet's prescribed strength but NOT in accordance with what was actually IN THE BOX, as per the box's own clear print. See the photo accompanying this article).

I emailed this to the Registrar of the Veterinary Council and his deputy, along with my own vet, my dog's cardiologist, and (of course), the local vet clinic itself.

Several days later, no response from the local vet clinic. Nada. Not a skerrick of even an acknowledgement of my email. I did, however, receive a reply from the Veterinary Council, asking me to request of the local clinic the name of the vet involved with the dispensing of the errant prescription.

So I rang several phone numbers for the Group without result, and finally - upon trying one final branch/clinic's phone number - I found myself speaking to someone who actually understood the gravity of the matter. She provided me with several (assumedly, senior management) email addresses, asked me to send a further email, and advised me that she'd be calling those recipients immediately to tell them to read my forthcoming email - and with the appropriate urgency.

So I wrote again, as per the above instruction:

"It is concerning that no communication has been received following my sending the below email on Tuesday of this week (nor even any acknowledgement thereof).

"This matter is not a small one. You have staff who are either sloppily dispensing the wrong medication OR who are taking it upon themselves to change the prescription of a prescribing vet, and doing this without any communication to the owner of the pet in question.

"The Veterinary Council has responded with the following instruction to me:

“We’ll need you to name the specific veterinarian that you’re concerned about from (this practice).”

"I look forward to some communication that demonstrates that your practice’s ownership and managerial team are actually giving serious attention to a matter of this gravity.

"In the meantime, as evidence, please see the attached photograph of the box, its actual contents, and the labeling applied by you. NB: This is the box that your reception staff did not want me to take away with me, as you will read below."

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

A Response . . . But Some Serious Concerns, Notwithstanding

Finally. the next day, I received a response from management - acknowledging "this incident" and assuring me that "we are currently putting in place a double-checking system on all our medications dispensed by our practice.

"This will involve every prescription to be checked by two veterinary staff members (one of whom is a veterinarian or senior staff member). The medication will be checked for the type, the strength and the dose of the medication and that the medication is for the correct patient.

"We are also sorry that the communication of the staff regarding the prescription error was not satisfactory. We have spoken to all the staff including those involved and outlined the importance of our customer care."

Well, I'm still not all that impressed, and here's why:

1) If there was indeed an appropriate level of concern, this would have - or should have - resulted in some immediate (even if interim) acknowledgement of my correspondence, without prompting that involved copying the practice in on emails to the Veterinary Council, my own vet, my dog's cardiologist, and even Consumer New Zealand.

2) How was such a serious and potentially fatal set of circumstances allowed to eventuate in the first place? Certainly, both the fact that it did, and the clinic's management advising me that they had now put appropriate and supposedly fail-safe dispensing practices in place, would indicate that they have long been operating without any such safety measures. To say nothing of the casual responses of the clinic's frontline staff.

3) I note that the eventual reply from management avoided mentioning the name of any vet - the specific item of information requested by the Veterinary Council.

CUSTOMERS OF VETERINARY CLINICS SHOULD NOTE:

Don't assume that there is any point or path of recourse against a veterinary clinic per se. Unless you can get the name of a specific vet, you - the client, and your pet - are on your own.

From a communication by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand:

"Under the Veterinarians Act 2005, VCNZ is responsible for regulating individual, practicing veterinarians. We don’t regulate veterinary clinics or veterinary support staff; therefore, we are unable to consider a complaint about a veterinarian clinic generally."

So, my advice, is to not be reticent in asking questions, or in questioning the advice or practices or conduct, of any veterinarian or veterinary clinic . . . Don't be lulled into some false sense of security that you'll have any overseeing industry or professional body to look into anything on your behalf (or that they will); no matter how serious. Even if your pet dies. It'll be too bad for you, basically. To put it baldly, you have no guarantee that anybody will give a flying F-K, much less execute any disciplinary action. (It's the same 'ol, same 'ol. In both my opinion and in my experience, the "industry watchdogs" are more concerned to protect their own, wherever they can. It's the same in almost every industry across the board. The only difference is that in the veterinary and medical industries, the result could be fatal.)

4) So much for management's claim that: "We have spoken to all the staff including those involved and outlined the importance of our customer care."

Their accounts department certainly didn't get the memo. On the morning of the 25th of January, I received a very terse phone call telling me that I had an outstanding invoice for my dog's heart medication.

In no uncertain terms, I advised the staffer (I have her name, if management gives a stuff and wants it) that not only had the practice acted in a manner that could have had fatal consequences for my dog, but they had not exactly been "best practice" in their communications, and now - to add insult to injury - she was ringing me in a most unfriendly manner to demand payment for a product that (mercifully) I never took possession of (aside from the empty box, as evidence of the mis-labeling incompetence).

Said staffer responded that "I haven't heard anything about it". I suggested her employing organisation "get your shit together" and that "I'll leave it with you", and hung up. A very short while later, I found an "Overdue Invoice" in my email inbox.

Highlighting their continuing incompetence, check out the fact that the invoice claims to have dispensed the correct dosage i.e. 1.25mg of the heart meds - when, in fact, as this article and the photographic evidence illustrating it, demonstrates, they actually dispensed the outlined potentially fatal double dosage (2.5mg) you see on the box, and that my copious correspondence to them has detailed.

< 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 .)