LONDON, September 12 /PRNewswire/ --     The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
yesterday (11 September 2007) reprimanded a Gloucestershire-based veterinary
surgeon for supplying prescription-only medicines to his wife.

At the two-day hearing, Mark Hinds MRCVS, of the Severnside Veterinary
Centre in the Forest of Dean, was charged with serious professional
misconduct having admitted supplying the medicine Remedeine Forte to his
wife, Wendy, between October 2005 and July 2006. The supply of such
prescription-only medicines is a criminal offence under the Medicines Act
1968 and the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct requires veterinary surgeons
to comply with this and associated legislation. The College had first
received a complaint about Mr Hinds from Carol Hyde, a former veterinary
nurse who was employed at the practice at the time. Mrs Hyde reported that
quantities of Remedeine Forte had been ordered by the practice but not for a
particular client. She subsequently learned that this medicine was intended
for Mrs Hinds (who later admitted to Mrs Hyde she was taking the drug) and
observed Mr Hinds taking the medicine away with him. Mrs Hyde's complaint to
the College and anonymous letter to the police also detailed additional
deliveries of the medicine that were put aside for Mrs Hinds' use.

The Committee heard that Mrs Hinds had been in a serious car accident in
1999. She had undergone repeated surgery to stabilise her spine and, later,
to remove metalwork from her spine when she contracted MRSA. Since then, she
had suffered 'unremitting pain'. In a letter to the College, Mr Hinds
admitted supplying the medicine to his wife and expressed regret for his
actions. He told the Committee he had not considered the Medicines Act, but
did not feel he was taking over his wife's care from her GP. He stated that
Remedeine Forte had been previously prescribed by her GP, with whom he had
discussed the supply of his wife's medicine, but explained that supply
through the veterinary practice was more convenient.

In giving detailed consideration to all the evidence in the case, and
taking account of the Legal Assessor's advice, the Committee accepted Mr
Hinds' explanation of the circumstances leading to his supply of the
medicine. It decided that his repeated supply of it over at least six months
was disgraceful conduct that fell far short of the conduct expected of a
member of the veterinary profession.

Before making its judgment, however, the Committee also took into account
the mitigating evidence. Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Mr Brian
Jennings, said: "We have been impressed by [Mr Hinds'] early admission of his
conduct and the regret that he has subsequently shown. The oral and written
testimonials that he has received [from over 40 veterinary surgeons and
clients] indicate that he is highly regarded as a veterinary surgeon in the
area in which he practises. We have concluded that the appropriate course to
take is to reprimand Mr Hinds."

Notes for Editors

1.The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and
deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of
veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of
veterinary education.

2.RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary
Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with
Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has
authority to deal with three types of case:

a) Fraudulent registration

b) Criminal convictions

c) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3.The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the
1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of
law.

4.The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS
must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5.Section 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 prohibits the sale of, or
supply of, restricted medicines. Section 58(3) provides an exemption for the
sale and supply of medicines by veterinary surgeons for administration to an
animal or herd under his care. Section 67 makes it a criminal offence to sell
or supply restricted medicines in contravention of section 58.

6.Further information, including the charge against Mr Hinds and the
Disciplinary Committee's decision, can be found via
http://www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.