Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
Note: These Q & A were made in response to the first proposed changes to the vet act. In May 2006, the AVMA withdrew their proposed changes and although changes are still pending, as of yet, none have been released to the public.
The Q & A section is written by Sonja Christopher. The goal of this section is inform, but to also link you to further documentation so you can do your own research and be confident that you are well informed on the animal welfare controversy. If you have a question you would like answered, please contact Sonja at sonja.christopher@yahoo.ca.
Q: What is the controversy about?
A: The AVMA is proposing a new definition for "veterinary medicine" for the Alberta Veterinary Profession Act. The change to the definition is important because Section (2) of the Veterinarian Profession Act states: "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person except a registered veterinarian or permit holder shall engage in the practice of veterinary medicine."
Therefore, what is defined as "veterinary medicine" is legally exclusive to veterinarians. The only exemptions to this are the list of exemptions under the Scope of Practice in the Veterinary Profession Act. The problem is the new definition covers, well. everything, and nowhere in the vet act are non-veterinarian practitioners exempted from this proposed broad definition of "veterinary medicine".
Current and Proposed Definition of Veterinary Medicine
List of Exemptions in the Veterinary Profession Act
Should the changes be passed as they are now, it will increase the jurisdiction of the veterinarian professional monopoly, making it ILLEGAL for non-veterinarians to continue to directly offer wellness options to animals. According to the current AVMA Council Guidelines, the only way these complimentary forms of animal health-care could be offered is if they work as "consultants" to veterinarians. Having the Veterinary Profession as the gatekeeper of all animal care will increase costs for animal health-care and will deter many from having complimentary health care performed on their animals.
According to AVMA council guidelines P. 4 a registered veterinarian may consult with a non-veterinarian only if the veterinarian:
- Employs these people as consultants and only allow them to work under direct supervision or with written directive performing specific tasks or therapies in the management of a particular case.
Jennifer Heick, a Waterloo chiro-practor, gives Benny, a shepherd cross, a chiropractic treatment. Heick has treated him for a variety of ailments. From the Record.com; article titled Healing Hands. |
- Maintains a proper Veterinary/Client relationship, i.e. the veterinarian assumes ultimate responsibility for the case and any treatment administered and is responsible for on-going communication with the non-veterinary professional. AVMA Council Guidelines (Scroll to Pages 3 and 4)
Q: Why is the AVMA proposing to change the definition of "veterinary medicine?"
A: This question has several answers. The following are some of the answers you may not hear from the AVMA or the government. Lastly, I will link you to the reasons the AVMA gives. Read them both, and then you decide.
1) The AVMA lost a court case at all three levels of the court. The AVMA tried to enforce an injunction against a non-veterinarian practitioner, Louis Pequin, an equine dentist. It was the first time an Alberta non-veterinarian practitioner challenged the definition of veterinary medicine and the veterinarian professional monopoly. The result was a precedent setting case. The Court based its decision on the current definition of veterinary medicine in Alberta, and it ruled that equine dentistry was not exclusive to veterinary medicine.
AVMA vs. Pequin – Court of Queen’s Bench Ruling
AVMA vs. Pequin – Court of Appeals Ruling
AVMA vs. Pequin – Supreme Court of Canada Ruling
Letter of Complaint about Louis Pequin and his wife, Claudia Pequin, D.V.M.
*** NOTE that even though Louis Pequin’s wife, an Alberta registered veterinarian, was implicated as part of the supposed “scam” in the complaint letter, she was never investigated by the AVMA. Also, the AVMA does not quote in the court case from the “revealing newspaper article” that supposedly reveals Louis Pequin’s blatant incompetence. In the court case, Mr. Pequin gave uncontested evidence that he had never harmed an animal and that his customers were generally satisfied.
The underlying reasoning of the Court was that a professional monopoly must clearly define what it covers. It can not suddenly decide to expand its jurisdiction and take away the livelihoods of all those currently working in a certain field of expertise.
It is interesting to note, the AVMA took Pequin to court for unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine when in 1990, the AVMA said routine dentistry was not veterinary medicine.
Routine Dentistry is Not Veterinary Medicine Says AVMA in 1990
After the courts ruling, this created a problem for the AVMA. The AVMA can only discipline their members if it falls within “veterinary medicine”, leaving loopholes when it comes to disciplining their own members.
B) The AVMA believes the public is at risk now because they have lost the control of being able to “discipline” non-veterinarian practitioners. However, we must keep in mind that under the guise of their noble status in society, veterinarians are a running a business. Isn’t it handy to have complete control over your competition? Not to mention a fast growing and successful competition at that. The field of complimentary health is reported to be the fastest growing industry for humans; and animals are not far behind. For example, according to the magazine Organic Lifestyles, Sept/Oct 2005 issue, “Organic pet food sales are up 63% from last year, and are growing at nearly three times the rate of human organic food sales, says the Organic Trade Association. We do love our pets and this remarkable growth says we are willing to feed our best friends better than we feed ourselves.”As owners experience the great benefits of complimentary health for themselves, they naturally consider what these approaches could do for their animals. The other thing to consider when it comes to economics is that a complimentary health approach focuses more on prevention. This approach leaves less people running to their veterinarians because their pets are staying healthier. And if their animal does develop a chronic illness, complimentary health gives owners options to drugs and surgeries, which are the main income for most conventional veterinarians. Conventional medicine veterinarians do have an invaluable role. When it comes to emergency, life-saving care, veterinarians are without a doubt the best ones qualified for this job.
There is little debate that a holistic veterinarian who offers both conventional and complimentary medicine would have the highest qualifications for the job. However, alternative medicine is slow to expand into the veterinary field. For example, less than 5% of all Alberta registered veterinarians are certified in acupuncture. For the few holistic veterinarians that do exist and are within your area, many are so busy that they are not accepting new clients. Other holistic veterinarians are so highly priced because of their additional training and expertise that owners are forced to search for more affordable options which includes
non-veterinarian practitioners.
Desiree Chen uses a slender acu-puncture needle to work
on Jackie, a Sheltie, at the King Street Veterinary Hospital
in Cambridge, Ontario. Chen uses both traditional and
alternative health therapies in her veterinary practice.
From the Record.com article titled Healing Hands.
To find out more about acupuncture, check out: http://www.petsynergy.com/acupuncture.html
Book: Love, Miracles & Animal Healing
By Allen M. Schoen, D.V.M. and Pam Proctor
On page 124 begins a neat story of how Dr. Schoen brought a 12 yr. old German Shepard literally back to life using an acupuncture point. This is after nine veterinarians used all the techniques known to conventional medicine and failed to revive the
dog who had gone into cardiac arrest after post- operative complications.
C) The other answer you won’t hear about is how the AVMA feels the public is incapable of making good decisions about the health of their animals, and therefore they must be the gatekeeper of all animal care.
On page 9 of the 2004 AVMA Annual Report, it states, “Ours is a profession where the public is poorly equipped to asses expertise and it is [the AVMA’s] job to judge it for them.”
Owners are not unintelligent people. They can make good decisions as long as information is available to them. They make decisions about bringing themselves and their children to a massage therapist, chiropractor, or acupuncturist --and can do so of their own free will, without a referral from a doctor. But suddenly these same people are incapable about making decisions about their animal’s health. Remember, these are the same animals that are so similar to humans that they are used for science experiments to test human medicine & products.
So when you hear the phrase “the change is needed to ensure animal welfare” asks yourself, “Is this a case of the AVMA protecting my animals from me?”
D) The AVMA believes the public is at risk now because they have lost the control of being able to “discipline” non-veterinarian practitioners and this will impact animal welfare. They claim that since non-veterinarians do not have the legislative authority to exist and/or work specifically on animals, the public will not be protected against incompetence and fraud. Whether an association has a legislative authority to exist or not, does not ensure public protection. The best protection is an educated, empowered individual.
Note, on page 3 of the current AVMA Council Guidelines, it says, “Veterinarians are committed to protecting animal health and welfare.” And it says, “Veterinarians are committed to protecting the public’s interest in regards to animal health and welfare.”
Yet in 2003, when Todd Williams, an equine dentist, informed the AVMA on behalf of his customers (including photos of proof with a specialized camera) that owners were paying good money to have their animals harmed by uneducated dentistry performed by veterinarians – do you know what the AVMA did? Instead of investigating veterinarians or setting equine dentistry standards for veterinarians, the AVMA’s lawyer ordered Mr. Williams to “cease and desist” immediately his job as an equine dentist because he was practicing veterinary medicine (in the eyes of the AVMA). So they gave a “cease and desist” order to a man who was trying to protect animal health and welfare, and trying to protect the public’s interest. Interestingly, Mr. Williams was the same man who was so knowledgeable on equine dentistry that the AVMA hired him in 1993 to teach equine dentistry to Alberta veterinarians.
Todd William’s Complaint Letter
Response letter from AVMA/ AVMA’s Lawyer
Todd William’s Second Letter of Complaint
Before I had known about Todd William’s complaint, I asked Duane Landals, Registrar of the AVMA, whether there have been any complaints against veterinarians performing improper dentistry (up to 2005). He responded that there was one complaint over the phone, but that it did not count as a formal complaint. Yet here is a letter of complaint made in 2002 by Iris-Ann Porter, a horse owner:
Letter of Complaint by Iris-Ann Porter
And if it the proposed changes are really about protection and animal welfare, then why is the AVMA providing an exemption for FARRIERS? Farriers do not have a legislated governing body, and an uneducated farrier is capable of causing great harm to an animal. Why are farriers the only exempted group in the vet act?
Good question? One that I can not answer. You’ll have to ask Dr. Duane Landals, registrar of the AVMA: duane.landals@avma.ab.ca
Protection is only a reactive measure. Realistically, there will always be different levels of competency whether a group is legislated or not. In fact, there are many forms of human health care that do not have a “legislative authority to exist” such as massage therapy and acupuncture. It is time for animal owners to be proactive about their animal’s health. Having educated and empowered animal owners will accomplish everyone’s goal of raising the standard of animal health and welfare. An informed animal owner will be able to wisely decide which practitioner is best suited to provide care to their animal, whether it is a non-veterinarian, or a veterinarian. The AAAOR is also planning an “umbrella group” for all non-veterinarian practitioners to ensure credibility, ethics and promote accessibility to animal owners.
Lastly, what the AVMA has to say:
http://www.avma.ab.ca/act-amendments/the-clarification.htm
http://www.avma.ab.ca/act-amendments/index.htm