London-based vet issued a reprimand and warning after issuing a veterinary prescription intended for human use

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has issued a reprimand and a warning to a London-based veterinary surgeon after she was found to have issued a veterinary prescription intended for human use.

Dr Nicola Jane Gurrin MRCVS appeared before the Committee on Monday 30 September and Tuesday 1 October, at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London. There were two charges against her.

The first charge was that, on or about 3 March 2023, Dr Gurrin wrote prescriptions indicating that the prescribed medicine was for the treatment of an animal, when it was in fact intended for the treatment of a human. More particularly, these were:

a)    a prescription for 30 tablets of Roaccutane 20mg (generic name isotretinoin); and/or,

b)    a prescription for 30 tablets of Roaccutane 10mg (generic name isotretinoin).

The second charge was that Dr Gurrin’s conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where Dr Gurrin was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.

Dr Gurrin admitted the allegation in its entirety and the Committee therefore found it proved.

Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct. The College submitted that Dr Gurrin breached fundamental tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct and acted dishonestly and, as such, that the admitted facts amounted to disgraceful conduct.

While the Committee accepted that Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, in that a veterinary prescription was written for medication intended for human treatment, the Committee took into account the context within which the incident had occurred – that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.

When considering a sanction, the Committee took into account the mitigating and aggravating factors. Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of a prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist - in that Dr Gurrin did not attempt to invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription; that there was no financial or other personal gain; that this was a single isolated incident; that it was a spur of the moment decision without reflection; that no harm was caused or risked to any animal as a result of Dr Gurrin’s actions; that Dr Gurrin had had a long and previously unblemished career; and that she showed insight into the offence.

The committee also took into account the character testimonials which showed Dr Gurrin not only to be an exceptional vet, but a dedicated professional who had nurtured a very strong team, and someone who is held in extraordinarily high regard by both her clients and colleagues.

There were no aggravating factors.

The Committee considered that the case was too serious to take no further action, but that there was no ongoing danger to the public or risk to animal health in respect of Dr Gurrin’s professionalism.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case. It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time. The Committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.

“The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

This news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision - the full documentation for the case is available on the our disciplinary hearings webpage.