Vet who took home living cat she was meant to euthanise while the grieving owner thought it was dead is found guilty of disgraceful conduct

A vet who took home a cat that she was meant to euthanise has been found guilty of disgraceful conduct.

Dr Janine Parody had put down three or four animals already that morning and said she could 'not face another euthanasia' as she thought the 'happy' cat could be cured, a disciplinary committee heard.

When a veterinary nurse questioned whether the owner had consented to the treatment, a tribunal heard Dr Parody said the owner did not want the cat, thought it would be dead and would be 'none the wiser'.

Without getting consent from the eight-month-old cat's owner, Dr Parody sedated the animal, castrated it, removed its microchip and put in a new one, and took it home to look after it.

The cat's owner - who regularly rescued cats and had only recently taken ownership of him - said she 'grieved for his little soul'.

But although the woman, identified only as SM at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) tribunal, was 'elated' when she was eventually informed the cat was alive - she was then asked to pay £480 for the treatment and accepted.

The tribunal heard the woman who regularly rescued cats took ownership of the cat, called Shadow, but soon after decided to have him put down because he was 'very sick' with MRSA, was thin, and had facial injuries.

An appointment was made for Dr Parody to carry out the task at Castle Veterinary Group in Framlingham, Suffolk, on December 20 2021.

But after consulting a dermatologist who suggested the MRSA could be treated, Dr Parody instead shaved the cat, castrated Shadow and directed a colleague to remove his micro-chip.

Dr Parody, a single mother who has two dogs and two cats at home, then took Shadow home to care for him over Christmas of 2021.

But after Christmas, after a receptionist asked why there was no record or clinical history for Shadow, Dr Parody admitted the cat was alive and at home with her. SM was then informed and returned to the practice to collect the cat on December 31.

But the tribunal heard that by late February, after further treatment, the cat was still poorly and was put down.

Dr Parody resigned and an investigation was launched.

SM told the tribunal she felt that both she and the animal had suffered unnecessarily as a result of Dr Parody's decision not to put him to sleep on 20 December 2021.

The tribunal heard the cat's owner felt like Dr Parody - who was working under 'extraordinarily stressful circumstances' brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic - wanted to keep the cat for herself.

But the vet told the panel she had been 'ready to euthanise' until she walked into the consulting room and was greeted by a sweet young cat which appeared healthy apart from his skin condition.'

She added: 'I had already done back-to-back euthanasias that morning as mentioned and upon seeing a happy young cat, I just could not face another euthanasia.

'I think it is important to say here that even though at that point I had been a vet for over 10 years, euthanasias are never easy and you always "take them home" with you.'

The panel found there was a mix-up in communication as Dr Parody wrongly believed the cat did not have an owner.

Dr Parody said: 'I understand that my decision not to euthanise Shadow and instead to treat him without the consent of Ms SM was wrong.

'It was a decision I made on a very, very busy and stressful day and when I thought the cat had no owner but I fully appreciate that was no excuse.'

She said she acted 'with the welfare of the cat at the centre of my decisions' and had no intention of adopting the cat.

The panel concluded that the vet had acted with the best intentions, but had 'made a series of very poor decisions'.

They said Dr Parody 'made incorrect assumptions about the lack of ownership of Shadow, based on conversations from other members of staff, rather than clinical records' and had failed to check the cat's microchip. The vet then 'took it upon herself to make a series of decisions she was not entitled to make, without first consulting the owner.'

Dr Parody, who now works in Herefordshire, was given a reprimand.