Vet practice team takes on gruelling challenge to raise money for charity
15 colleagues from Ashlands Veterinary Centre, which has branches in Skipton, Glusburn and Ilkley, will be aiming to climb Penyghent, Whernside and Ingleborough, on June 12.
And while most will be walking and aiming to finish in 12 hours, vets Amy Sansby and Elizabeth Pratt and veterinary nurse Steph Ellis will run the 25 miles, including the 5,200 ascent.
The team is hoping to raise £2,500 to split between the Keighley, Craven and Upper Wharfedale branch of the RSPCA and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund (Vetlife), which gives independent, confidential and free advice to people in the veterinary community.
Ben Ogden, veterinary practice manager, said: 'This is a very special year for us as we are celebrating our 25th anniversary and we will also be opening our new hospital later in 2025, so we wanted to do a big event to mark the occasion.
'Doing the Yorkshire Three Peaks Challenge will be a great team bonding opportunity, as well as a chance to have some fun and raise money for two important charities that do so much good work for both animals and members of the veterinary community.
'Even colleagues who aren't taking part have volunteered to be support crew and we will have the practice ambulance parked are various points so we can refuel and have a rest. Some of the team are a little apprehensive but we'll be supporting each other as we always do, and it will be a great achievement.'
Excitement is building over the opening of the new hospital which will be twice the size of its current practice in Ilkley and will boast the latest equipment and technology.
Plans for the site, which is just further along Leeds Road from the existing practice, include five consulting rooms, with one dedicated to cats, three operating theatres including a dedicated dental suite, an ultra-sound suite and x-ray facilities.
The site will also house a CT scanner suite boosting the practice's capability for handling a wider variety of cases, such as orthopaedics, soft tissue issues and tumour analysis.
Investment for the practice is being provided by VetPartners, a York-based veterinary group led by members of the veterinary profession, which owns some of the UK's most respected and trusted small animal, equine, mixed and farm practices, including Ashlands Vets.
To donate to their JustGiving page, go to: https://www.justgiving.com/team/ashlandsvets?utm_medium=TE&utm_source=CL or, if you're visiting Ashlands Vets, you can donate through QR codes around the practice
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Roger Williams, Our Lady of Fatima hospitals sale to move forward. Here's why
PROVIDENCE – Attorney General Peter Neronha announced Thursday, July 31 an amended decision to facilitate the sale of Roger Williams Medical Center and Our Lady of Fatima Hospital. The decision – the second amended in the sale process – reduces the cash-on-hand requirement for the Centurion Foundation, a Georgia-based nonprofit, from $80 million to $45 million for closing the deal. The reduction of cash-on-hand, explained Neronha at a press conference, was due to Centurion having difficulties selling bonds to raise funds for the purchase of the hospitals. But the amended decision also requires Centurion and CharterCARE to secure an additional $35 million within 90 days, bringing the funds back to $80 million. Neronha said the parties have given him assurances on their ability to raise funds post-sale that, in his judgment, could be relied on. The attorney general also said he secured the remaining $50 million – from an original $80 million in an escrow account – to create a hospital fund as part of the transaction. Additional conditions have also been attached to the sale, among them: A requirement for the parties to spend at least $50 million on capital expenses at the hospitals within three years of the transaction A requirement for the parties to not contest the attorney general's right to file a petition for the appointment of a receiver in case of insolvency The detainment of a consultant, at the expense of the parties, to report on the financial and operation state of the hospitals 'While this is a complicated process, our goal is simple: make sure our safety net hospitals are in the best position possible to serve our communities for as long as possible,' Neronha said in a written statement following the press event. Neronha explained that the hospitals were not yet entirely out of danger but that progress has been made: the hospitals are staying provisionally open, are shifting from for-profit to nonprofit and the attorney general's office will have levers to pull in case of an insolvency. 'I don't want to stand here and gaslight Rhode Islanders and make them believer, or have them believe, that all the problems have been solved. They haven't,' Neronha said at the July 31 press conference. 'But we have made some steps forward.' The attorney general added that Rhode Island's chronic low reimbursement rates from public and private insurance need to be addressed to treat the health system's ailments. 'Until we make a Rhode Island patient mean the same financially as a Massachusetts or a Connecticut patient, our hospital systems and our providers and our workers are always going to be at a state of disadvantage,' Neronha said. The anticipated closing date for the sale – pending approval by a bankruptcy court in Texas – is sometime in late August or mid-September. The full amended decision is available here. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Roger Williams, Our Lady of Fatima hospital sales moving forward Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
N.H. Governor Kelly Ayotte signs bills banning gender-affirming care for minors
Proponents have said the ban is an important way of protecting children from treatments they believe to be harmful and irreversible. But opponents say the new law discriminates against transgender youth, removing treatments they view as life saving, and interfering with doctors' ability to make appropriate medical decisions with families. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Violations of the new law will go before New Hampshire's board of medicine, which can take administrative disciplinary action. Advertisement The new law also allows someone who was harmed by receiving this care to bring a lawsuit against the person who provided the care and violated the law. The new ban comes as legislative efforts targeting transgender people have grown in recent years. Last year, New Hampshire lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming genital surgeries for minors, even though providers have said such procedures are exceedingly rare in New Hampshire. All of the other New England states have laws protecting access to gender-affirming care, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a Colorado-based think tank that promotes equality. Advertisement Some New Hampshire families with transgender children have been warily watching as the bill advanced and, in some cases, have been Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire who championed the ban were encouraged by a But some attorneys say there are still avenues for pursuing a possible legal challenge of New Hampshire's new law. That could include a challenge based on the New Hampshire constitution, arguing that the intent of the law was to harm transgender people, or a challenge on the basis of parental rights, according to Chris Erchull, a senior staff attorney at GLAD law. Ayotte also signed a second bill banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors. The bill explicitly prohibits 'transgender chest surgery' for minors as part of a gender transition. Violating the law is classified as unprofessional conduct and would be subject to discipline by the board of medicine. The law also allows minors to sue for damages if they received such a treatment in violation of the law. And the attorney general can bring a suit to enforce compliance with the law. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trendy coffee choice sparks controversy when allergic child nearly takes a sip
A teenager's innocent coffee choice recently sparked an online debate after it nearly exposed a severely allergic child to a nut allergen. In a Reddit post, an 18-year-old wrote that the trouble began after she carried a hazelnut coffee to her friend's house for a study session. Advertisement She claimed the drink was only for her — but her cup of joe caused a stir. 'After a while, I got up to go to the toilet,' the student recalled. 'When my back was turned, my friend's little sister (8), who is allergic to hazelnut, tried to drink my coffee.' The Redditor's boyfriend quickly intervened, telling the 8-year-old girl that she couldn't sip the drink, according to the post. 'When I explained to her that the coffee has hazelnut, my friend got very upset at me, saying I shouldn't bring over something that could endanger his sister,' the young woman added. Advertisement A hazelnut allergy is one of the most common types of known tree nut allergies, according to For individuals with tree nut allergies, beverages made with real hazelnut extract can be life-threatening, according to WebMD. A hazelnut allergy is one of the most common types of known tree nut allergies, according to New Africa – The most severe reaction, anaphylaxis, can cause the body to go into shock and may be fatal without immediate treatment like an Epinephrine injection, as Fox News Digital has previously reported. Advertisement The 18-year-old admitted that the thought of an allergic reaction didn't occur to her when she got the drink. 'I just didn't think it would happen since she's always asked before eating any of my sweets and candies,' she said. On Reddit, people were split over the sticky situation, though most of the commenters took the teen's side. Advertisement 'The 8-year-old should not be sipping other people's drinks at all,' one person wrote. 'Especially if she has a serious food allergy. Who was supervising her?' 'Why is an 8yo drinking coffee (also without asking)?' another person asked. 'Assuming from your story that she is only affected by ingesting nuts (as opposed to airborne).' Others felt the original poster overstepped by bringing a nutty beverage into the child's home in the first place. 'It's generally considered a bad idea to bring something that someone is allergic to into their home – even if you thought they wouldn't eat it/touch it,' one user said. 'Cross contamination is real and dangerous.' 'There should be special attention given to any food that is out [and available] when a child has a serious allergy.' Another wrote, 'The child shouldn't have [taken a drink of] your coffee, sure, but what if you had spilled it somewhere communal or something and exposed the child that way?' Diane Gottsman, a Texas-based etiquette expert, weighed in on the debate. Gottsman, who owns the etiquette-focused Protocol School of Texas, called the situation 'unfortunate.' Advertisement She told Fox News Digital, 'If the person bringing in the hazelnut coffee knew there was an allergy, they should not have brought the coffee in.' 'But often the person bringing in the allergen does not know unless they are alerted by the family member.' Speaking from personal experience, Gottsman said that her own adult daughter has a serious nut allergy and takes precautions. Advertisement Others felt the original poster overstepped by bringing a nutty beverage into the child's home in the first place. JCM – Ultimately, children don't reason the same way adults do, which is why adult supervision matters. 'A parent can teach a child to not share foods or drink without permission … [but] when it comes to a child, they are young and do not have the same type of reasoning skills,' she said. 'While the person who brought in the hazelnut did not do it intentionally, it could have still been dangerous.' Advertisement At 18 years old, the Redditor is still learning the ropes of adulthood – and Gottsman chalked up the error as a simple accident, though it could have had serious consequences. 'There should be special attention given to any food that is out when a child has a serious allergy,' she concluded. 'While the person who brought in the hazelnut did not do it intentionally, it could have still been dangerous.'
