Vet who took cat home to save it from being put down is convicted of disgraceful conduct

Dr Janine Parody chose not to put the ill eight-month-old feline to sleep, instead opting to treat it against the owner's wishes.

A Suffolk vet has been found guilty of disgraceful conduct after she decided to take a cat home that was scheduled for euthanasia.

Dr Janine Parody chose not to put the ill eight-month-old feline to sleep, instead opting to treat it against the owner's wishes.

The seasoned vet had already euthanised three or four animals that day and stated she could "not face another euthanasia", deeming the cat to be "happy" and curable.

Without obtaining the owner's permission, Dr Parody sedated the cat, neutered it, removed its microchip, inserted a new one, and took it home to care for it.

The cat's owner, who frequently rescues cats and had only recently acquired this one, said she "grieved for his little soul" and was asked to pay £480 for the treatment once she was told the cat was alive and she could reclaim it.

A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [RCVS] tribunal found Dr Parody guilty of disgraceful conduct and issued her a reprimand.

The RCVS panel concluded that Dr Parody made a "series of very poor decisions" but was operating under "extraordinarily stressful circumstances" due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The tribunal heard that at the time, Dr Parody was employed at Castle Veterinary Group in Framlingham, Suffolk. Colleagues described her as an "outstanding vet" who is "very fair".

In early December 2021, a woman who regularly rescues cats became the owner of eight-month-old Shadow, reports The Express.

During a tribunal, it was revealed that a woman identified as "SM" faced the heart-wrenching decision to have her cat Shadow put to sleep on 20 December 2021 due to a severe illness, including MRSA, emaciation, and facial injuries. She believed Dr Parody carried out the procedure.

However, after a colleague mentioned the potential for treating cats with MRSA, Dr Parody decided against euthanasia. Instead, she shaved and neutered Shadow two days later, removed its microchip with the help of a colleague, and took it home to care for it over Christmas.

To the owner's astonishment, she later learned that Shadow hadn't been put down, which left her both stunned and overjoyed. Despite this rollercoaster of emotions, the pet owner agreed to a payment of £480 to reclaim Shadow.

Sadly, Shadow's health deteriorated further, leading to his eventual euthanasia two months on. Dr Parody stepped down after an investigation into the incident commenced.

The owner implied during the tribunal that Dr Parody might have had intentions to keep the animal herself.

Dr Parody explained feeling overwhelmed by the pressures of Covid-19, taking on additional work from two other practices, and dealing with an overbooked schedule.

She told the tribunal: "I gowned up and I first saw the cat when I walked into a consulting room... We were ready to euthanise him."

She continued: "The drug Pentoject had already been drawn up. Upon entering the room, I was greeted by a sweet young cat which appeared healthy apart from his skin condition."

Dr Parody shared, "I had already done back-to-back euthanasia that morning, as mentioned, and upon seeing a happy young cat, I just could not face another euthanasia."

He also remarked, "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."

In relation to the incident in question, Dr Parody admitted, "I understand that my decision not to euthanise Shadow and instead to treat him without the consent of Ms SM was wrong."

Conceding the circumstances, he stated, "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."

Describing the flow of events, he explained, "Once I had made that one decision, I did not revisit my decision but simply continued to treat the cat as best I could at an extremely stressful time."

Reflecting on the consequences, Dr Parody acknowledged, "I accept that as a result of my decision and actions that the lady who had brought the cat in and who I now know was SM, was misled into thinking that it had been put to sleep and this is something I very much regret."

Concerning his judgment, Dr Parody commented, "My actions with regard to this cat all snowballed from my decision to treat the cat on 20 December and not put him to sleep."

Explaining his rationale, he said: "I know I should not have done this but because the cat was young and the condition curable, I felt that I was acting with the welfare of the cat