Vet reprimanded for taking cat home instead of euthanising it

Dr Janine Parody ‘could not face’ putting down Shadow after doing ‘back-to-back euthanasias’, tribunal hears

A vet with an “exceptional” reputation has been reprimanded for taking home a patient’s cat instead of euthanising it.
In December 2021, Dr Janine Parody was told to put down an eight-month old cat after its owner brought it to the Castle Veterinary Group in Framlingham, Suffolk.
The owner said she wanted the pet, named Shadow, euthanised because it was “very sick” with MRSA, thin, and had facial injuries, a Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) tribunal heard.
Instead, Dr Parody sedated the cat, castrated it, removed its micro-chip, put in a new one and took it home to look after it.
The vet, who had been described by colleagues as “exceptional” and “very fair”, said she had “already done back-to-back euthanasias that morning [and could] not face another”.
She also consulted a dermatologist after a colleague asked whether cats with MRSA could be treated.
Dr Parody, a single mother who has two dogs and two cats, took Shadow home over Christmas of 2021.
The cat’s owner, named only as SM at the RCVS tribunal, said she had “grieved for his little soul”.
The owner later described how she was “shocked and elated” after being told Shadow had not been put to sleep – but she had to pay £480 to have it returned.
Two months later, the cat’s condition worsened and it was put down. Dr Parody resigned and an investigation was launched.
A tribunal heard that the cat’s owner felt Dr Parody wanted to keep the cat for herself.
Dr Parody said due to Covid-19, her practice was covering for two others and that it was “close to collapse”.
She said the clinic was “ready to euthanise” Shadow on Dec 20 2021, adding:  “Upon entering the room, I was greeted by a sweet young cat which appeared healthy apart from his skin condition.”
“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.”
The panel found that there had been a miscommunication as Dr Parody wrongly believed that the cat did not have an owner.
Dr Parody said: “I understand that my decision not to euthanise Shadow and instead to treat him without the consent of SM was wrong.
“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.
“The lady who had brought the cat in… was misled into thinking that it had been put to sleep and this is something I very much regret.
“My actions were not in any way for my personal gain. I did not want to adopt the cat and never had any intention of doing so.”
The panel concluded that Dr Parody had been acting in “the best interests for the welfare of a viable young cat, whom she felt deserved another chance at life”.
It added: “A simple scan of the microchip and a consequent check of the clinical records, would have shown that the cat had a name and an owner.
“Had Dr Parody done that and still felt that the cat should have been given another chance, having spoken to the dermatologist, she could and should have then relayed that to the new owner, SM, and sought her views.”
Dr Parody, who now works at a practice in Hereford, was given a reprimand.