Gayndah vet Nathan Keith Henry Hitchcock cleared over treatment of terminally ill dog

A veteran Queensland vet with an unblemished record has been completely cleared of claims of negligence or incompetence.

Gayndah Veterinary Surgery owner and principal Nathan Hitchcock.

A veteran Queensland vet with an unblemished record has been completely cleared of claims of negligence or incompetence after the owner of a terminally ill dog who refused medical treatment and took it home lodged a formal complaint.

In a decision handed down by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on May 19, Gayndah vet Nathan Keith Henry Hitchcock was found to have acted properly when he examined the sick puppy on 16 December 2021,

The puppy was vomiting and had diarrhoea, and was dehydrated and was depressed.

A test for canine parvovirus was negative, but Dr Hitchcock formed the view that the animal almost certainly had parvovirus.

This was based on his observations and clinical assessment including the distinctive smell of its faeces, and the fact that false negative results were common, the decision states.

Dr Hitchcock did not want to immediately admit the animal to his vet surgery because, if his provisional diagnosis of the virus was wrong, there was a possibility of the pup catching the virus at his surgery, which would make it even sicker.

The virus had been prevalent and another dog with the virus had been in the clinic hospital, with Dr Hitchcock fearing the virus may remain in the clinic.

He wanted to retest the puppy a couple of hours later, the tribunal heard.

Dr Hitchcock counselled the dog owner that euthanasia may be appropriate given the very poor prognosis, but the owner declined to admit the dog because she could not afford it, and refused to allow the dog to be put down, the decision states.

Gayndah Veterinary Surgery owner and principal Nathan Hitchcock.

He administered or prescribed for the dog owner to give at home an anti-inflammatory and pain relief drug and an anti-vomiting drug, a diarrhoea medication, a probiotic and a parvovirus vaccination to relieve the animal’s suffering and distress.

He advised the client to return to the clinic in an hour or two for retesting for the virus, confident that it would be positive.

But the animal owner did not bring it back, instead intending to nurse it back to health, and instead the dog died some hours later.

The client made a complaint to the Veterinary Surgeon’s Board claiming Dr Hitchcock was negligent or incompetent in the practice of his profession and/or failed to keep proper records.

The tribunal concluded that the dog owner did not believe her dog was as seriously ill as Dr Hitchcock concluded in his clinical assessment.

“The Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Hitchcock explained professionally and competently to the client the nature and seriousness of the parvovirus in a pup, the treatment pathways for the animal, including the costs and required deposit for inpatient care and the alternatives to that care,” the tribunal decision states.

“Given that this was one incident and not a pattern of potential errors, we consider the factual matrix in its entirety does not show misconduct in a professional respect by Dr Hitchcock,” the three tribunal members ruled.

“We find the diagnostic conclusion reached by Dr Hitchcock was reasonable and professional,” according to the decision handed down by member Peter Bridgman, Dr Wendy Grigg and Dr Sandra Baxendell.

“The puppy, absent intensive inpatient care, was in a moribund state: neither a diagnosis nor a differential diagnosis was relevant to future management of the animal once the client removed it from Dr Hitchcock’s practice and did not return.

“Further tests could not make any difference in circumstances where the client refused or could not afford the recommended treatment.

“Dr Hitchcock has, apparently, an unblemished record over a near-20-year period. We found Dr Hitchcock to be a highly credible witness, confident but appropriate in his answers,” the tribunal found.