A loss we will never recover from
We were referred to Northwest Veterinary Specialists (NWVS) in December 2025 for surgical treatment for our dog, Mac, who had sustained ligament damage.
At the initial consultation, we were provided with a professional overview of the proposed procedure and post-operative care. During this consultation, we explicitly and unequivocally informed the treating clinician that Mac had previously exhibited a hypersensitive and adverse reaction to paracetamol. We made it clear that under no circumstances was she to be prescribed or administered any paracetamol-based medication. This information was also documented within her veterinary history, which had been provided to NWVS in advance.
Mac underwent surgery and was discharged the following day. Within a short period post-discharge, her condition began to deteriorate. We made repeated attempts to contact NWVS to report our concerns. Responses were significantly delayed, including one instance where no response was received at all. Despite raising concerns regarding her symptoms and prescribed medication, we were advised to continue with the treatment plan.
Mac’s condition worsened to the point where she required emergency admission. Upon presentation, she was suffering from acute and catastrophic kidney and liver failure and had lost her sight. We were required to make immediate decisions regarding emergency treatment under extreme emotional distress and pressure.
Mac died within hours.
We were subsequently informed that the cause of death was consistent with either an adverse reaction to medication or anaesthetic. It is a matter of record that Mac had previously undergone anaesthesia on multiple occasions, including in the days immediately prior to surgery, without complication, and with normal blood test results. Conversely, she had a known and documented hypersensitivity to paracetamol.
Despite this, NWVS prescribed and administered a paracetamol-based medication (Pardale V), contrary to explicit verbal instructions, documented medical history, and the known clinical risks associated with such hypersensitivity.
A formal complaint was raised. We were directed to the VCMS mediation process, which, while acknowledging the seriousness of the concerns, was unable to make any determination as to liability.
Following Mac’s death, NWVS issued an invoice in excess of £2,000 for emergency treatment administered in her final hours. Given the circumstances, we disputed liability for these charges. NWVS subsequently withdrew the invoice, citing a “gesture of goodwill,” while continuing to deny any responsibility.
Notably, when asked whether, in light of the outcome and the information available at the time, they would have altered their clinical decision-making, NWVS confirmed they would not have done so.
This raises serious concerns regarding clinical judgment, adherence to patient history, and the duty of care owed to both patient and owner.
On the basis of the above, we cannot recommend NWVS.
20 december 2025
Review zonder uitnodiging