|
Tess’s Story |
“Please see my trusting life is taken gently and I shall leave this earth knowing with my last breath I draw that my fate was always safest in your hands" [From the poem 'Treat Me Kindly' by Beth Norman Harris.]
TESS’S LIFE DID NOT END GENTLY NOR WAS HER FATE SAFEST IN MY HANDS - NOR THE HANDS OF HER VET.
On the 10th February 2003 my Irish Setter, Tess became unwell with a respiratory type illness. Laryngeal Paralysis was diagnosed on the 20th March 2003 and the vet suggested referring Tess to a specialist for laryngeal tie-back surgery. I understood that if she did not have this operation the condition could worsen causing her larynx to close resulting in asphyxia; under the circumstances I agreed that Tess should be referred to the specialist for laryngeal tie-back surgery.
However, on the 24th March 2003 I discovered a small pea-size growth at the same site as a malignant oral melanoma which had been removed the previous year. That same day I went back to the vet to question the appropriateness of the proposed surgery given the recurrence of this growth. I was told not to worry about the growth and that they would remove it at the same time as the laryngeal tie.
I have to question why the vet did not see this growth when he performed an endoscopy only four days earlier?
One week later the laryngeal tie was performed - but the growth was NOT removed. Instead it was tied up with suture material and I was informed that it would drop off within a week. The growth never dropped off and it was in fact a recurrence of malignant oral melanoma.
Tess was discharged the next day after the surgery, I realised almost immediately that something else was seriously wrong. Her stomach became distended and she appeared to be in pain following a small feed. That same day she was seen by the vet practice that had referred her for the laryngeal tie-back surgery. She was prescribed something to stop her vomiting as this could cause her to aspirate (suck fluid into the airway when drawing breath) so soon after surgery on her larynx. I remained very worried about her abdominal pain and discomfort overnight.
The next day she was seen again by the vet. She did not improve and was admitted for observation on the 4th April 2003. I visited her on the 5th April and we sat outside the surgery together. I felt very upset and did not know which way to turn. Her stomach was still distended. I pointed this out to the vet but he said nothing. He told me it was time for her to go back into her kennel. She wanted to come home and tried to escape, the vet kneed her into the kennel. I will never forget that.
The next day I received a phone call from the veterinary practice asking ME to take Tess urgently back to the vet that had performed the laryngeal tie because they felt she was aspirating. She was seen that morning by the specialist. (6th April ). She decided Tess had not aspirated and told me to take her home. She gave her a sedative and cough medication and said “I don’t want you bringing her back because she is coughing”!!
On arrival home, Tess was so sedated that I had to carry her indoors. I was scared by the level of sedation in a dog with a compromised airway and only five days post major surgery on her larynx. That Sunday afternoon I phoned to see if another vet would take over her care. I no longer had any faith in those who had been caring for her but I was told I would have to take her back to the same specialist.
That afternoon I took Tess back to the specialist. Following a chest x-ray the specialist told me she needed to loosen the tie as a matter of urgency - In other words she wanted to reverse the operation she had performed less than a week earlier, furthermore, she had discharged a very sick dog home just hours earlier that day.
Following the emergency operation to loosen the laryngeal tie, the specialist told me that Tess only had a 15% chance of survival, and a 50% chance of aspirating if she did survive. She suggested euthanasia. Why couldn't she have told me that before subjecting Tess to further suffering?
A friend of mine, who is a qualified nurse, was with me at the time and told me we should at least give Tess a chance to recover from the anaesthetic. We brought Tess home that night - drip and all - I thought to die.
The vet who performed Tess's operation does not employ staff to care for animals overnight that she has operated on during the day, therefore leaving Tess at the surgery was never an option so far as I was concerned. In my opinion it should be made a criminal offence to not have continuous supervision by qualified staff for animals that are hospitalised overnight following major surgery.
The following day Tess recovered from the anaesthetic, she was eating, drinking and showing no signs of aspiration, but she did continue to have abdominal bloating and discomfort after feeds. Between the 7th April and 2nd May Tess was seen by the vet on 17 separate occassions because of her gastric symptoms and because the growth in her mouth did not drop off and was progressing. I was told not to worry about the growth as there were no lymph nodes and that they would deal with it later when the gastric symptoms resolved.
On 2nd May 2003 Tess was admitted for excision of the growth. When I phoned the vet that afternoon I was told it was no longer in Tess’s best interests to remove the growth and that they had took a biopsy - WITHOUT MY CONSENT. On this occasion I told the vet that he had no right to mention my dog's best interests and that he should have thought of this five weeks earlier. I told him to refer Tess to another veterinary practice. I would never have put Tess through this last admission and third anaesthetic within the space of a month had the vet suggested that prior to admission that the growth may not be operable.
I requested Tess be referred as a matter of urgency to a major oncology centre. She was seen by an oncologist at the Animal Health Trust on 14th May 2003. I decided that after all she had been through, she deserved the best possible "care" be it treatment, or no treatment. I was told that the prognosis for recurrence of malignant oral melanoma is only six to nine months with treatment which would include excision and radiotherapy - so why did these vets operate on Tess's airway in the first place?
It is my belief that Tess never had laryngeal paralysis, and even if she did surgery would have been of no long term benefit to her. Thus the laryngeal tie was inappropriate, unethical and inhumane in my opinion.
As if this was not bad enough, the radiologist at the Animal Health Trust went on to diagnose partial gastric torsion and rotated spleen from the x-ray supplied by the referring vet. This would explain Tess's gastric symptoms which went undiagnosed for the previous six weeks.
I decided with the oncologist, no more vets and no more treatment for Tess. She received homeopathic remedies and I watched her improve both physically and emotionally. During those last precious months I tried to make it up to her for the harm that had been done. She would enjoy eating fresh cod, chicken, rice, pasta and vegetables (small meals often). We went for walks in the park. She wagged her tail when she saw her friends of which she had many - both animal and human. She would enjoy sitting out in the garden on her duvet with a brolley to protect her from the sun. She was NEVER left alone.
On the 10 November 2003 she was euthanased because of progression of her tumour and partial gastric torsion.
It is my opinion that the treatment she received from the two members of the veterinary profession was an assault on her being, and that the vets who 'cared' for Tess prior to her reaching the Animal Health Trust breached nearly every aspect of their code of conduct. They were, in my opinion, in breach of contract, breach of "Duty to Care" and breach of trust. They betrayed me, but most of all they betrayed Tess and caused an innocent animal to suffer serious harm with complete disregard for quality of life and long term outcome.
What happened when I complained to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)?