The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
is currently developing a "model" Veterinary Practice Act. After its
final adoption, the AVMA will "push" this model legislation on state
legislatures, encouraging them to adopt their model as law.
As one might expect, this proposed legislation
favors their member veterinarians to the detriment of animal owners.
Specifically, this model legislation seeks to make acquisition of
animal medications totally illegal unless bought directly from a
vet. It also seeks to make any use of drugs on an animal by
its owner illegal unless the owner has specific instructions
for use from a vet.
Furthermore, it seeks to discriminate against
sport and pleasure animal owners by banning all animal treatment by
owners unless the animals are kept for agricultural or feed
purposes.
The proposed legislation wants to overturn the
essence of almost all state laws which currently allow animal owners
to act as their own veterinarian (if they so desire) so long as they
are treating their owned animals. The proposed legislation is not
being considered because of any evidence that animal owners are
harming their animals by humane treatment with medications. Rather,
it is a blatant attempt by vets to maintain and strengthen their
monopoly on drug distribution so as to perpetuate price gouging.
This, despite the fact that the vet lobby already
has maintained the "prescription" status of the most popular equine
drugs, bute and Banamine, even though this category of mild
analgesic has long been "over-the-counter" for humans. Bute and
Banamine are the same exact category of drug as aspirin, tylenol,
ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, etc.
In order to make its proposed legislation appear
reasonably well accepted, the AVMA has appointed a "board" to "study
and develop" their proposal and they have posted the proposed
legislation on their website. Currently, they are taking "comments"
from the public on their proposed legislation.
As animal owners, it is in our best interest to
speak out against the proposal. It’s hard to say if our objections
will make any difference in their final adoption of the proposal.
However, if enough people protest, at least they will not be able to
go to state legislatures and claim that their model legislation
apparently has the blessings of the public because no one
complained.
I believe the AVMA is hoping that their proposal
gets quietly adopted by as many states as possible before anyone
figures out what is means to animal owners. It’s time we stood up
and were counted because if they have their way, horse owners (which
is my area of expertise) will soon be paying nearly $75 for a bottle
of bute pills, which is less expensive to manufacture than generic
aspirin.
To read the AVMA proposed legislation, it’s on
the internet at http://www.avma.org/education/mvpa/default.asp OR,
go to any search engine, put in AVMA, go to their Webster main page,
scroll down a bit and you’ll see a link for their Veterinary
Practice Act proposal. The new pro-veterinarian language occurs in
Section 6, Exemption #8 and it seeks to severely restrict the right
of animal owners to treat their own animals. They also explain their
ideas further down in a section which explains their "intent" in
recommending such legislation.
For the recreational trail rider, the biggest
impact of the proposed changes as I read them will be the inclusion
of alternative therapies and neutraceutical recommendation as
veterinary-only applications. This will mean that you cannot have a
massage therapist come and give a massage to one of your sore trail
horses without a vet recommending it. In fact, the wording is so
broad that I am not sure if the application of a leg paint is legal
if you do it to someone else's horse. Certainly using a bioscan or
cold laser to heal a cut will be against the law.
It means that you will be in violation of the act
if you call a friend and recommend the use of MSM to their horse
that tied up on the trail, or use of Chrondrotin Sulfate or even
vitamin supplements to an arthritic horse. You will not be able to
recommend to a friend to try a certain herbal treatment for his or
her horse without being in technical violation of the act. In fact,
I don't think you will be able to deworm someone else's horse
without a vet's permission if you read this thing in its most
literal sense.
It means that when it comes to breeding your
trail horse, you will need to have a veterinarian involved with
arranging for semen shipments (not just inseminating your mare). If
you sent the mare to me to foal out, I would not be allowed to check
the mare's milk for adequate antibodies, and I would certainly not
be allowed to check the foal to see if the antibodies made it into
the foal's system.
The only thing that doesn't seem to be
specifically worded is the use of a farrier, although you can read
the act such that your farrier could not apply a pair of heart bar
shoes or other therapeutic shoes to your ailing horse without the
inspection and permission of a vet first.
Scary, isn't it?
