"Dedicated to Promoting Optimum Animal Welfare and Supporting Responsible Choice in Animal Health Care".  To see Mission Statement, visit “About Us”.

 

Please note: Since May 2006, the Alberta Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA) has withdrawn the first proposed changes to the Alberta Veterinarian Profession Act. As of yet, the AVMA has not completed a new proposal nor have they given any indication of when it may be ready. The following article does give important background information as to the original proposed changes and the possible legal implications as there is concern that a future proposal for changes will not be that different from the original proposal.

Controversial Decision Looms

by Sonja Christopher

Reprinted with permission from Horses All.

There’s a controversy brewing in Alberta over changes to the Veterinary Profession Act (VPA). The main impetus for these changes stems from a court case that took place back in 2002. In that case, a complaint was lodged with the AVMA against Louis Pequin, an equine dentist.

The AVMA took the stance that Pequin was illegally practicing veterinary medicine, and so took the case to court … and lost.

They lost in the Court of Queen’s Bench, they lost in the Court of Appeals, and the AVMA’s application to the Supreme Court was also denied. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled:

“The statutes creating these professional monopolies, sanctioned by law, access to which is controlled and which protect their members in good standing who meet the required conditions against any competition, must however be strictly applied. Anything which is not clearly prohibited may be done with impunity by anyone not a member of these closed associations.”

In other words, equine dentists were not “clearly prohibited” from doing what they do under the current definition of veterinary medicine, the AVMA did not have jurisdiction over them and, therefore, lost their case.

In response to those Court rulings, the AVMA is now lobbying the provincial government to make amendments to their current definition of veterinary medicine in the VPA.

The definition of veterinary medicine that they are proposing would be more extensive than all other provinces, and is supposed to be a leading model of high standards of veterinary care in Canada.

However, as the proposed definition reads now, it will also severely limit your choices when it comes to the care of your horses, and the livelihoods of all people involved in providing non-veterinary animal health care.

Before going any further, let’s take a closer look at the current definition of veterinary medicine.

Currently, Section 1(p) of the VPA defines veterinary medicine as “a medical service performed with respect to an animal and includes the following:

i) surgery;

ii) obstetrics and ova and embryo collection;

iii) prescribing, compounding, dispensing and selling drugs.”

The new definition proposed by the AVMA describes veterinary medicine as “that branch of knowledge that relates to maintaining the health of animals and to preventing, diagnosing and healing diseases and injuries to animals, including:

a) advising, demonstrating, teaching, inspecting, regulating or conducting research in respect of veterinary medicine;

b) examining, diagnosing, prescribing, manipulating and treating for the prevention, alleviation or correction of a disease, injury, condition, deformity, defect or lesion of an animal, with or without the use of any instrument, appliance, drug or veterinary biologic;

c) prescribing, compounding, dispensing and selling a drug or veterinary biologic, medicine, appliance or treatment of whatever nature to an animal;

d) administering a drug, veterinary biologic, medicine, appliance or treatment of whatever nature to an animal;

e) performing a surgical operation on an animal;

f) performing any procedure for the diagnosis of pregnancy, sterility or infertility on an animal;

g) practicing veterinary dentistry, consisting of all prophylactic, medical and surgical procedures within an animal’s mouth;

h) performing obstetrics and ova and embryo collection on an animal; and

i) certifying the cause of death of an animal.”

The new definition would, obviously, give much further explanation as to what a veterinarian can, and does, do on a daily basis.

However, these changes to the definition are important because of Section (2) of the VPA, which 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, as the definition of veterinarians’ responsibilities increases, so too does it further decrease what non-veterinarians are legally allowed to practice.

The next portion of the amendment that deals with the “Scope of Practice” or what is the exclusive domain of veterinarians also limits what non-veterinarians can do.

Unless your activity is mentioned in the “exceptions” list below, then you would be illegally practicing veterinary medicine (as it would stand in the proposed legislation).

“Scope of Practice, exceptions:

a) a technologist practicing under the direction or control of an unrestricted veterinarian and in accordance with the regulations;

b) a person who is engaged in trimming hooves, shoeing and applying or using corrective procedures or devices specifically for gait and stance modifications in animals;

c) a person or the person’s employee who is engaged in the treatment of the person’s animals or animals of the person’s employer;

d) a person who is engaged in the examination or preventive or therapeutic treatment of farm animals using non-surgical procedures in return for the performance of similar services by the owner of the animals;

e) a person or the person’s employee who is engaged in the treatment of farm animals that the person rents or leases from or custom feeds for the owner of the animals, if the owner consents;

f) a person who is engaged in dehorning cattle, sheep or goats, in docking pigs, sheep or horses or in castrating cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses or any other animal prescribed in the regulations made under section 3;

g) a person who is using an animal in research at a university, if the research is carried out using acceptable veterinary procedures and the use of the animal has been approved by an appropriate animal care committee of which at least one member is a registered veterinarian;

h) a person who gives assistance in a time of urgent need, if the assistance is given without hire, gain or hope of reward;

i) the carrying out of the practice of a profession or occupation under the authority of any other enactment such as production animal medicine outlets, pharmacists, agrologists, etc.”

So, according to the above exceptions, it will still be legal if your neighbours come over and help you de-worm your horse … without payment – see exception d).

And, you won’t be breaking the law when you pay your farrier for trimming or shoeing your horse’s feet – see exception b).

However, you will notice that equine dentistry is not on the list of exceptions. So, next time your horse’s teeth need floating you will have to call a veterinarian to perform the procedure, not an equine dentist.

You may have also noticed that equine massage therapists, chiropractors, herbalists, and acupuncturists are also not mentioned in the exceptions list.

Under the proposed legislation, it would be illegal for them to practice, except under the guidance of a veterinarian – see exception a). So, if you think your horse needs a massage, you will have to call your veterinarian. Of course, if these occupations were regulated in their own right and had legislation passed, then they could practice legally in Alberta – see exception i). It is also worthy of note, that farriers are one of those occupations that are not regulated in Alberta, and yet they are mentioned under the exceptions list. The question arises as to why farriers are exempt and not any of the other non-regulated professions?

While the AVMA insists that it is not out to change the way the horse industry works, under this new legislation it most definitely could … and that’s what matters.

There is a lot of misinformation regarding the proposed changes to the VPA out in the marketplace. Take, for example, our members of the legislative assembly (MLAs). The very people who representative us in government are also confused.

When asked about the legislative amendments proposed by the AVMA, MLA George Rogers responded in a letter, “…let me assure you this amendment will have no impact on people’s ability to work with animals, and does not give a monopoly on animal health care to veterinarians … holistic practitioners and many others are still exempt and can continue to treat animals as they do now.”

In addition, MLA Fred Lindsay responded to one of his constituents with, “Minister Cardinal (the Honourable Mike Cardinal of Human Resources and Employment) advises me that the proposed amendment will in no way affect those veterinary activities that the VPA currently allows to be performed by non-veterinarians.”

However, even Adrian Pritchard, the man responsible for the drafting of the proposed amendments admits that, “It is possible holistic practitioners may be affected.”

Are you confused yet? Have you heard conflicting opinions of what the proposed legislation will mean to you, the horse owner? Can you make an informed decision with all of this conflicting information?

Dr. Duane Landals, AVMA Registrar, says, “I believe it is safe to say that the public has become more aware of the need to verify the credentials of individuals offering health care service as they cannot rely on the regulatory process to protect them in all cases.”

If that is, indeed, the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to lobby those un-regulated professions to develop their own set of governing rules and certification systems instead of transferring all aspects of horse care to the AVMA?

It should be noted that the AVMA has only enforced one successful injunction against a non-veterinarian providing animal health care within the last five years (against an individual who was giving vaccinations to animals in their homes). Therefore, it could be asked if the proposed amendments are about affording the public protection from unskilled practitioners or are they about increasing the AVMA’s jurisdiction?

Another interesting point to ponder: The proposed amendments to the VPA in Alberta are similar to changes already instituted in Florida. So, what happened in Florida? Well, animal owners lost their right to choose because their definition of “veterinary medicine” included chiropractic, aromatherapy, massage, physical therapy, and even animal communication.

In response to that legislation, animal owners in Florida have created a group called the Florida Alliance for Animal Owners (www.faaor.org) and are attempting to pass a bill so that they can legally choose the kind and type of service providers that they want for their animals because, right now, they don’t have that choice.

Adrian Pritchard has told me that I need to convince him that holistic practitioners should be exempted from the proposed Alberta legislation.

I would like to respond to that with the following quote from an article by Dr. Dennis Rach, DVM, written for his fellow veterinarians in the 1994 March/April issue of the AVMA Newsletter:

“The public is also becoming aware of a number of alternatives to traditional medicine. Veterinary medicine must not ignore these alternatives, but instead recognize that many of them have something to offer. Once again, there is a market for these services and individuals willing to meet the demand.”

So, even some vets believe that there is a market for holistic health. I think Adrian Pritchard needs to convince me that vets are capable of all the things over which they are seeking jurisdiction.

It is very possible that the amendment may be presented to the Alberta legislature as early as fall 2006. If you want your opinion heard, you can call the AVMA at (780) 489-5007, fax: (780) 484-8311, or email: avma@avma. ab.ca. You can also contact your MLA (look in the blue pages of your telephone book for listings). Remember, your MLA is the person who represents you and will be voting on the proposed amendment in the legislature. It’s imperative that you express your views before any legislation is passed. The time is now – let your voice be heard!

There will be a forum for animal owners to express their views on Sunday, March 12 at 3:45 p.m. at Blackland Ranch, 15 minutes NE of Edmonton. The AVMA and government representatives have been invited. The forum will take place in conjunction with the last sessions of the Health, Harmony & Horses Conference, but there will be no admission fee for those coming only to attend the Animal Health Care Forum.

For more information, contact Sonja Christopher at (780) 922-0752 or email: sonja.christopher@yahoo.ca