Fully Viable & Requiring Nothing More from Massey than the Rehydration for Which He Was Admitted: Clinical Proof Now with NZ Govt Investigators

Undoctoring Massey's Not-So-Masterful (& Substantially Fabricated) 'Clinical Summary'

Much to Massey's chagrin — and most especially their  Legal & Governance department, the staff of which saw the need to intercept the "Hospital's" "Clinical Summary" when it had been about to be released to me (and that, even so, features numerous nonsensical entries, inconsistencies and obvious "doctoring") — I have now produced 13 pages of undeniable clinical evidence eviscerating their attempts to paint my dog, Harry, as some past-his-use-by-date, sad, suffering old thing.

I have painstakingly amassed all his recent — some as recent as 12 days before his fatal and highly regrettable admission to Massey for a simple rehydration protocol — and where relevant, slightly older specialists' records. All records, all full clinical examinations (including a full intake physical at his new primary vet together with extensive bloodwork) demonstrate with nil doubt or ambiguity that Harry was a perfectly viable and generally vibrant little dog who needed only what he was admitted to Massey for that fated night: a proper, clinically adequate, competent, rehydration protocol . . . oh, and not to be catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with a cocktail of contraindicated sedatives for the ICU night staff's convenience, and for the day staff's usage (literal torture) as a teaching mechanism and film subject.

This 13-page analysis has been formally submitted to the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit.

MPI's investigation is active and the evidence is documented.

And what can be said,  without equivocation, is this:

Harry required nothing more than the simple rehydration procedure for which he was admitted.

They chose to give him something else entirely.

(And, in a deliberate move to prevent any complaints being laid against those involved, the  Veterinary Council of New Zealand is choosing to misappropriate its mandate  and  betray the trust of all pet owners by misdirecting its powers to the protection of the great unnamed, identity-retracted "they" . . .  leaving this pet owner to have to painstakingly research and progressively identify the "they's" herself.)