Rethinking our council structure

The proposed governance revamp as reported in Vet Times (VT54.04) does suggest much further thought should be applied.

In my view, there are at least three weaknesses in the arguments put forward – in particular, the idea that an independent appointment system be adopted. It is hinted this is the current 21st century’s best mode. Also, the idea that the possibility veterinarians should be a minority is mooted; again, the hint is that this is best regulatory practice.

From my experience as a regulator and giving input into law for an overseas territory, I think these are mistakes that will lead to the long-term detriment of the profession and, by extension, animal welfare and the general public.

Firstly, “an independent appointment system” is not a modern system. It predates Athenian democracy by many hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It is the “oligarchic” system, which is a very old system of choosing the “good” and “suitable”. History demonstrates it is a weak system that eventually does not serve its original purpose.

Therefore, usually, after two or three cycles or generations, the “appointed” serve the interests primarily of their committee or council. Their primary aim is no longer the original aims of the council; this is because we are human and (alas) power corrupts. It could be argued that this is a major weakness of the UK systems and institutions of government.

We most interestingly have three governments which are illustrating this. With each government most likely nearing the end of its term, the leader ends up selecting the “right people” to serve the primary aim of holding on to power and self serving: the Blair-Brown Labour Government; The SNP Government of Salmon, Sturgeon and Yousa; and the current Conservative Government of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

It is understandable that we, as a highly motivated group, want a perfect or ideal solution. But the reality is much better illustrated by Winston Churchill, who said democracy (as in a system that uses a ballot) was the best of the worst. Churchill was born into enormous privilege, but he accepted the support and rejection of the voters, and we should also note he did not enter the House of Lords.

So, we should hold on to a ballot system. If we want we can widen the electorate. But we should maintain a majority of vets on the council.

Enormous sacrifices

Secondly, one of the arguments was “What are we here for? We’re here for animal welfare and the public.” The implication of that argument is that of the three entities – the vets, the public and animal welfare – vets do or will prioritise ourselves above the other two.

The evidence I have from more than 40 years of witnessing first-hand primary care vets who make up the majority of the vets, and who perhaps should make up a majority of the council, is that this is not true. Vets make enormous sacrifices just to qualify.

These sacrifices, given the talents vets possess, are not for financial gain, improved quality of life or to have some special dominion or power over animals or people. If they went into other businesses, they would gain much greater financial reward, given their talent, probably far more opportunities to control others, a far better quality of life and time off, and far more opportunities as well-heeled owners to have power over large numbers of animals, if that was their aim.

Of course, the evidence shows the opposite. Vets serve often in an almost self-sacrificial way, satisfying the needs of owners, empathising, trying to get them a fair deal (in some cases breaking the veterinary business rules to achieve this) or staying on late to meet the client. Some vets have even taken sick animals into their own homes or slept in practice at night, or got up three times to check an animal.

‘[The] issue of animal welfare is a lifetime calling…’

Vets may grumble about the behaviour of clients (and if you enjoy dark humour, the Veterinary Defence Society has hilarious stories to tell there), but the bottom line of treating the client as the “customer is always right” is, almost without exception, achieved. The high incidence of mental health issues and of suicide in the profession of those who are working at the “coal face” is also solid evidence vets are not prioritising themselves. Rather, they are consistently putting the other two first. And when one thinks about it, the issue of animal welfare is a lifetime calling. That is why many vets first chose the profession; to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Now, I am older than 60. On occasion, I meet a member of the public who says, “you’re a vet, you must love animals”. I usually have two immediate thoughts: “Yes, I do, but some of the owners I find a challenge”, and my second, more powerful thought is that I am embarrassed by the sheer commitment of vets now in their 30s, 40s or 50s who have been in practice for more than five years, and who are determined to do the best for the client and the welfare of the animal presented to them.

I simply do not see them as group of self-serving individuals. Possibly, they should be looking after themselves a bit better these past few decades.

Looking outside profession

The third argument is that we should be in some way congruent with other professions; therefore, whatever self-regulatory practice they engage in, we should follow or have similarities.

One should, however, be careful when comparing apples with pears. Professions are very, very different: this I know from first-hand experience as the only vet among four different professions represented by immediate family. The vet profession is unique. That is why, for example, “to vet” something has a very distinctive meaning, very different from ”to doctor”, “to cook”, “to creatively account”, “to judge” or “to lecture”.

The only strand I can find where there are major similarities with other professions are in the field of ethics. When vets perform sub-optimally, are negligent or unethical, we can cause significant damage to man and beast. However, one only has to read the newspapers these past few years to realise we are not in the same league compared to the damage that other professions can cause (Post Office sub-postmasters scandal, PPE procurement, Lucy Letby, Stafford Hospital scandal, Scottish ferry boat scandal, and so forth). Yet, paradoxically, we are very stringent and picky on the behaviour and performance of vets. In the past few years we have, for example, severely disciplined a senior member of the profession for incorrectly signing some documents.

The other major distinction between us and all other professions (with the exception of paediatrics) is the clinical dynamic primary care vets face continually. Prioritising in order of importance, animal welfare (bear in mind, the vet has to immediately assess the animal’s behaviour), the owner’s requirements, the business requirements of the practice/hospital and, finally, the vet’s own need (for example, a lunch break). Therefore, vets are peculiarly finely tuned to work in unique circumstances which few fully understand. That is the reason why vets, however they are elected, should comprise a majority of council.

To conclude, we should rethink our proposed council structure, maintain a ballot, maintain a majority of vets on council and accept that, although we are not the largest profession nor the one which can make the largest changes to society, we are unique in fundamental ways; fortunately, the majority of the public recognises this.