Manchester-based vet suspended after issuing veterinary prescription intended for human use

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Manchester-based veterinary surgeon be suspended from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons for two months after she was found to have issued a veterinary prescription intended for use by her father.

Dr Anca Bucur MRCVS appeared before the RCVS Disciplinary Committee at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in London from Wednesday 19 to Friday 21 March.

There were three charges against her.

The first charge was that on or about 17 April 2024, Dr Bucur wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that the prescribed medicine was for the treatment of an animal, when it was in fact intended for the treatment of a human.

The second charge was that between 17 April 2024 and 22 April 2024, Dr Bucur allowed said prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to prevent the same being so presented.

The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Bucur admitted all charges against her and the Committee accepted her admissions. In relation to charge three and Dr Bucur’s dishonest conduct, the Committee found that it was clear from the evidence provided by the College, as well as Dr Bucur’s own witness statement, that she had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, should not have indicated that it was for an animal, should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.

Therefore, the Committee found all charges proved.

In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took all evidence as well as aggravating and mitigating factors into account.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Dr Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury, since she had not been professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol; that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug, in the absence of proper professional qualification or full clinical information; and, that her conduct had been premeditated. It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Dr Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.

The Committee also found that Dr Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed. The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.

In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.

The Committee was of the view that the Dr Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs. Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Dr Bucur’s actions. As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.

The Committee found that Dr Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.

In deciding upon an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors. The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors. In terms of mitigating factors, it noted that Dr Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career prior to this incident.

The Committee accepted that Dr Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct. She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing. The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from Dr Bucur’s witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct. She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials, which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.

The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Dr Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided. There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals. However, the Committee could not ignore that Dr Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.

Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest. However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.

"The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest. However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests."

"The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

"The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed. It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight. It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession. The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.

"The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months."

Please note: this news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to aid in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The Committee's full decision can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.