Sweepy’s Story

Sweepy was just 4 years of age when I noticed that her rate of breathing was too fast. Other than this she appeared clinically well. She was eating and drinking normally and enjoying her play.

On the 1st April 2004 Sweepy was seen by a vet regarding her fast respiratory rate. Bloods were taken and the results were normal except the white cell count, which was slightly raised. She was treated with antibiotics. The vet told me she thought she may have asthma as a result of being kept on a prescription dry food diet for too long.

Sweepy’s condition appeared to improve on the antibiotics, but on the 6th April I took her back to the vet because her rate of breathing had increased again. I saw a different vet on this occasion. This vet told me Sweepy had bronchitis or pneumonia and prescribed Baytril® (A Fluoroquinolone - active ingredient: enrofloxacin).

Immediately following the Baytril injection Sweepy appeared “uneasy”. I was to continue giving her 25mg a day in tablet form, which I did. She was salivating immediately after being given the Baytril tablets and I felt she was reacting adversely to this medication.

I returned to the surgery and informed the veterinary nurse that I thought the problem was an adverse reaction to Baytril. She refused to let me see the vet and told me to continue with the treatment. Sweepy continued to have signs of what in my opinion was a reaction to the medication. She was salivating and behaving strangely, her tail would be in the air and her eyes staring, she appeared not to be able to see me.

I stopped giving Sweepy the tablets on the Friday and returned to the vet on the Saturday. I saw the same vet who had initially prescribed the Baytril, he had an injection already prepared (along with several others in a kidney dish). He promptly injected Sweepy without any consultation with me, immediately prior to this I had informed him I felt Sweepy was reacting to Baytril.

We took Sweepy home, during the journey she was “uneasy”, salivating and incontinent of urine. On arrival home, I took her out of the basket. Sweepy was uncoordinated and falling and unable to support herself. She was continuously salivating, staring into space and appeared unable to see and was crying. I immediately contacted the vet who told me to give IT aspirin. I insisted that he saw her immediately as she was now obviously very ill. We returned to the surgery. The vet’s first words were “this should never have happened”.

Sweepy was given an adrenaline, Colvosone (hydrocortisne) and Millophylline (aminophylline). I understand these are the first line drugs that are given when an animal has an anaphylactic reaction to a drug. The vet aspirated 25mls of clear fluid off her lungs. He then x-rayed her and told me that her heart was displaced and nothing more could be done for her. My beautiful four year old, previously healthy cat was euthanased that morning.

It is my opinion that this veterinary surgeon was grossly negligent in his actions.

I complained to the RCVS Conduct Department on the 28 April 2004.

On the 18 May 2004 the RCVS informed me there were no issues of professional conduct to pursue in my case. I feel that the death of my cat was a result of the fact that this vet ignored my concerns regarding Baytril and failed to obtain my consent before administering the injection. I informed my MP and my case was reopened.

On the 22 September I received another letter from the RCVS informing me that “there are signs that Sweepy may have had an adverse reaction to Baytril and there is a need to be cautious when treating cats with this medicine. The committee noted that these matters previously only known to veterinary ophthalmologists, although a Veterinary Record (Vol 150, page 555-556) reported the adverse reaction to the veterinary profession in April 2002. The RCVS saw no reason to question the vet’s fitness to practice.

I disagree with the RCVS Professional Conduct Department. No vet should give a medication to an animal unless he is familiar with the side effects of that medicine.

What a vet does not know, he/she should find out first!!

On the 14 May 2005 I received another letter from the RCVS informing me “In relation to issues of consent, which you raised by letter… the Preliminary Investigation Committee found no issues of conduct in the circumstances of your case”. Again I strongly disagree with their decision.

This vet not only gave Sweepy an injection of a drug he knew I felt she was reacting to. He also gave this injection without my consent and against my wishes. I feel that his attitude toward me as his client and the owner of Sweepy, was arrogant, rude and totally unacceptable.

Please can someone tell me why pets hold no value in law?

Help to stop all this. The Veterinary Surgeons Act is currently under review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Please sign the petition to the Prime Minister requesting that in future there is an independent ombudsman to oversee the veterinary profession.

Review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act - Please Sign the Petition

Vet Watch - Keeping an eye on the RCVS Conduct Department

Action4Animals Home Page