Whilst conducting a literature search for Vet Juris I came
across an article with an interesting title that was published in the Journal
of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics (Volume 5, No. 4): The Failure of
Professional Self-Regulation: The example of the UK Veterinary Profession http://dl.dropbox.com/u/67710635/Blass%20article.pdf; Written by: Dr Eddie Blass, of the University of Hertfordshire (Dr Blass’ PhD
is in the field of business).
I was interested in
a quote contained in the second paragraph of the discussion implying stare decisis (legal precedent) “…no
reason why it [relevant information] needs to be communicated or confirmed in
writing”. The quote was made in relation to veterinary certification. I looked for a reference to this quote in the
list of references, but it was missing. So, I enquired further and downloaded
the court case from the law library citation: Blass v Randall [2008] All ER (D) 165 (May) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/67710635/Blass%20v%20Randall.DOC . The above quote is contained in paragraph 76 of the court judgment.
Of more interest, however, are quotes from paragraph 70 of
the judgment: “I was not impressed by Dr Blass”; “Dr Blass is a person well
capable of setting out to mislead others” and “I am confident that her claims
in this action are founded upon falsehood”. The Judge Seymour QC, has no
difficulty in suggesting that Dr Blass in a liar a cheat and a potential
fraudster. I would make it clear that Seymour J was complimentary of veterinary
surgeon Miss Sarah Randall’s honesty and professionalism. A report was printed in the magazine The Horse and Hound on 24th May 2008 http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/257025.html .
Considering the title the journal one would conclude that there would be an
interest in “Ethics”, so,you might also be interested to read the line in
paragraph 45 of the judgment, which in turn refers to paragraph 30 of the
veterinary surgeons statement “Dr. Blass elected to work the horse on Bute [a
pain reliving drug] against my advice”. The consequences of this action are
liable to render an animal irreparably damaged and lame.
The question that has to be asked is why did Dr Blass submit
this article and why did she omit the reference to the court judgment. The
answer to the first question would appear to be revenge; and, the answer to the
second is probably best summed up in the words of Judge Seymour, “Dr Blass is a
person well capable of setting out to mislead others”.
On a first reading the article appeared to be an unbiased investigation
into the inconsistencies and incompetence of the Royal College’s investigatory
and disciplinary bodies. While Vet Juris has a degree of sympathy with some of
the views expressed in Dr Blass’ article, her whole argument is discredited by
her lack of honesty, plagiarism and deceit.
The take home message is - Take nothing at face value – The devil is in
the detail.
Vet Juris has written to both The University of Hertfordshire (Dr Blass's employer at the time of authorship) and the article's publisher in Melbourne, Austrailia; we currently await replies. When Vet Juris has more on this topic it will be published here.
Vet Juris has written to both The University of Hertfordshire (Dr Blass's employer at the time of authorship) and the article's publisher in Melbourne, Austrailia; we currently await replies. When Vet Juris has more on this topic it will be published here.
VJ © 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment