Do Not Take Your Animanl to this unethical Vet

On the 9th April 2018 my sister and I visited the Vet Care Veterinary Clinic, situated on 2 Fisrt Road, Corner Long Road Greymont. We had taken our 10 year old Alsatian/Labrador mixed breed dog in (Sophie), due to an open wound found on her upper right thigh. We initially assumed that she would simply need antibiotics and stitches, however nothing was discussed. We were told that it was a mass that could be removed. The only 2 things then communicated by Shereena Moodley were that she could do it on that day at 11 O’clock, and that it would cost us R3500. Furthermore, it is required that a client to sign a consent form for every major surgery. The consent form should be state that everything was discussed in detail (which it was not). It should also be dated and signed on the day said discussion and agreement was made (which never happened). It is also required that a copy of signed consent forms are provided to the client (which again, was not done).

Further on said "consent form" I, myself did not sign but Dr Moodley states exists. Dr. Moodley mentioned to us that this consent form exists. Said consent form she must be referring to was probably from more than 5 years ago (which I, the one who paid for the recent treatment did not sign and agree to) was for Sophie’s surgery on her uterus and cannot apply to the operation done on the 9th of April 2018. Or if she referring to the form filled in the first time ever going to your clinic, in which only initial client detail information is given, which again was well over 5 years ago. Neither of which is in any way, shape or form an agreement for the operation on Monday the 9th of April 2018. All of which she should be privy to. Before all of this had happened, we did not know about what was required.

Complications such as how the anesthetic would affect her was only very briefly mentioned only after the operation and only after the fact that she did not wake up on the day, she stated Sophie would. I would also like to point out that we did not feel the lump she claimed to have made us feel, we had trusted her judgment.

Sophie did not walk out of the clinic as Dr. Moodley claimed she did. She was carried to the car by a member of her staff because of the fact that she could not walk herself to our vehicle which was parked right around the corner and was still extremely drowsy. She said that she did not eat much while she was at the clinic because you stated Sophie might have been shy or scared at the vet. The fact that the vet discharged Sophie still heavily sedated and unable to walk herself to the car is yet another breach in conduct. Photographic evidence showing Sophie’s state just after being discharged can be found in the PDF attached.

Thus, the fact that Dr Moodley began to conjur and manipulated made up events to suit her narrative does not reflect well on her character as a person and on her professional practice. We were not aware of the necessary procedures that a vetenarian was to undertake, thus we trusted her word and left our dog in her care.

Post operation, our dog (Sophie) had a swollen leg on the opposite side of the wound. We assumed this was simply due to the medication and would go down. However, she did not walk the entire week, so we then began to worry. On the 16th April 2018 my young sister had taken Sophie back to VetCare Veterinary Clinic due to the swelling that did not subside, and the fact that my dog had not walked at all in the past week. All that was said to my sister was, “She is an old dog anyway”. I had went in after work to speak to Dr Moodley about the situation. When I mentioned the lack of communication before such a serious surgery and the legal formalities she did not follow, she then proceeded to raise her voice at me. I had asked her not to raise her voice to me, and she continued. I left the clinic disheartened by how I was treated, and when I got home, sent an email of complaint as well as asking about what could have possably caused the swelling. (kindly see attached PDF). As per her initial response to my email to her on the 16th of April, she stated that I had "attitude problems". I had initially asked her to not raise her voice at me, which she then proceeded to dismiss and address me in a belittling and demeaning fashion. As a paying client, I am still shocked. Dr Moodley provides a service and I was the client, in all of my exchanges with her, I have been nothing but professional in tone and manner. The fact that she found my emails attacking in nature, when I was simply addressing her in a professional manner is worrying.

On the 17th of April 2018, when my younger sister and family members visited Sophie, I was made aware that she had instructed a family member to sign a form that was not communicated in detail what exactly was being signed for. Also, this was AFTER I had mentioned to her in my first email (on the 16th April 2018) that there was no initial form of consent. Please see attached image of this document and the date outlined.

It is both unethical and illegal to make a person that was not present at any of the consultations and admissions of Sophie to sign any document on my behalf without consulting either my sister or myself, who were the ones who brought Sophie in. Even if all information and accounts of our pets fall under my mother’s name, as Dr.Moodley argued. Anastasia Tracey (the family member who was told to sign the form when she visited Sophie) was not contacted beforehand for her consent to the operation.

If age was such a large issue concerning the operation which she, herself claimed was a major one for a dog of Sophie’s age (as stated above), at no point in time were precautionary tests done beforehand to see if she was able to cope with the strain of the operation. If this was in fact done, this was not communicated to us and does not reflect on the invoice.

Lack of transparency and inconsistent information concerning the operation is also extremely worrying. On the invoice, it stated that Sophie was in operation for 60 minutes, yet in her email (16th April 2018) she then states was actually over 90 minutes. This is a factor that was not considered as a cause of the leg swelling. Especially knowing that my dog is old, Why is this? Sophie was still heavily sedated after the second day post-operation.

Lastly, she stated the treatment would cost us a set amount and that is what we expected to pay. Any further costs that Dr Moodley states were all on her behalf are all on her, as this was a follow up of a problem that occurred as a result of the operation she performed. This was indeed her responsibility. We as the client did not ask her for any favours. Lack of transparency and communication on what we are paying for falls on her.

My dog has had to be put down on the 26th April 2018 at another vet, due to the fact that Sophie was going through organ failure as a result of the operation. He did confirm that the operation did not have to happen as it was merely an abscess that could have been drained. The fact that Sophie was not walking was due to Shereena Moodley damaging a nerve as it was close to the spine.

I highly recommend that her lack of professionalism and extensive breach in conduct be addressed.