“…
mostly just plain Bullshit.” These
are the words Ivor Clark used in his colorful complaint letter about
Mr. Pequin, an equine dentist. This is the same letter which sparked
THE court case. The court case that is even known by animal health
care providers in the United States.
The court case: The Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
applied a court injunction to stop Mr. Pequin, an equine dentist,
for practicing what they considered was veterinary medicine. In court,
Mr. Pequin gave “uncontroverted evidence that he had never injured
a horse during dental treatment and that his customers were generally
satisfied with his work”. The only thing Mr. Pequin was guilty
of was of writing an informative article for horse owners. The Court
ruled that equine dentistry was not veterinary medicine, and the injunction
was not granted.
The AVMA not only lost in the Court of Queen’s Bench, but they
lost in the Court of Appeals, and the AVMA’s application to
the Supreme Court was denied. The Court of Appeal recalled a Supreme
Court of Canada ruling which said:
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.
Since anything “not clearly prohibited may
be done with impunity by anyone not a member of these closed associations”,
the AVMA is now lobbying the provincial government to make dramatic
revisions to the current definition of veterinary medicine. The
definition they propose is more extensive than all of the other
provinces, and is supposed to be a leading model of high standards
of veterinarian care in Canada. However, these high standards will
directly conflict with the rights of animal owners to have choices
when it comes to the care of their pets, and the livelihood of all
the people providing alternative animal health care. A legislative
axe is being held above the heads of all non-veterinarian animal
health care providers and your right to choices when it comes to
the care of your pets. Whether that axe comes down or not is up
to you.
Right to Protection – or – Right to
Choose
The AVMA claims the new amendment will protect your rights to qualified
veterinary care and protect your animals from fraudulent and incompetent
animal health. But is the price of this “protection”
worth the service? Is the protection necessary? Do you think it
should be illegal for you to hire a massage therapist, herbalist,
aromatherapist, Reiki practitioner, equine dentist, acupuncturist,
homeopath, TTouch practitioner or any other non-veterinarian animal
health care provider? Should vets be given legal jurisdiction over
holistic practices, including indigenous healing arts, in which
they may not be qualified? Veterinarians will undeniably always
be a vital part of animal health care, but will a veterinary professional
monopoly really enhance animal welfare? These are some of the questions
which have created the animal health care controversy in Alberta.
(Note: I’ve been advised by Mr. Pritchard of Human Resources
that the word “professional monopoly” does not apply.
However, since the AVMA is calling it a professional monopoly and
the Courts are calling it a professional monopoly, I feel this term
is appropriate.)
Before we go any further, I want you to know I am not an equine
dentist. I am not a holistic practitioner. And my livelihood is
not in jeopardy if this proposed amendment is passed. I do organize
a weekend horse conference held in March every year near Edmonton.
The proceeds from the conference are donated to a different charity
or organization each year. I wrote this article because I am passionate
when it comes to the well-being of my animals. My conscience would
not be clear if I didn’t try to inform other animal owners
of what is truly at stake if the proposed amendment is passed by
the legislature. I strongly believe I am not the only one who wants
the right to choose the kind of care their animals can receive.
Please contact me if you want confirmation on anything I include
in this article. I can be reached at harmonyhorses@primus.ca .
I first heard about the proposed amendments through “gossip”
while I was organizing the 2006 Health, Harmony & Horses Conference.
When I first heard about the proposed changes, I have to admit I
felt my ‘word of mouth’ information must have been exaggerated.
Surely the AVMA can’t assume that veterinarians are the only
ones entitled to heal diseases. Anyway, doesn’t the body heal
itself? When I cut my finger the other day on a piece of paper,
I didn’t go running to my doctor to heal it. Healing is a
natural process. Health care providers merely assist in the healing
process. In my opinion, saying you have legal jurisdiction over
the ability to heal, is like saying you are God! And how could the
AVMA possibly think vets would have the time to become knowledgeable
in all the alternative modalities out there, many of which takes
years and years to become proficient in?
I decided to get information straight from the ‘horse’s
mouth’ to see if my concerns were valid or not. I looked for
information on the AVMA website. There was nothing about the amendment
there, so I faxed them a letter. In my letter, I asked if someone
well-informed on the topic would like to speak at my up-coming conference
to help clear the confusion out there. I also asked them several
questions. The following is a simplified version of the questions
I sent:
• My conference is different from other conferences because
it presents alternative topics. Will the new definition allow alternative
modalities to legally be performed on animals by people who are
not vets?
• As an animal owner, will I still be able to choose how and
who can provide whole care (including mind, body and spirit) for
my animals?
• Where can I send people to get answers and clarification
about the new proposed definition? Is there a web site with this
information?
I received a letter dated November 29th, 2005, saying they were
unable to commit representation at the conference, and a public
web site was under development to provide clarification on this
issue. (There is now information on the AVMA web site at www.avma.ab.ca).
In response to my questions, the president of the AVMA, Dr. Dan
Joffe, wrote, “It is our opinion that the delivery of veterinary
services will occur in the same manner after the amendment as before.
Individuals who are not veterinarians may be involved in the delivery
of these services in certain cases if they are included under the
existing exceptions to the Act.”
Because my questions were not clearly answered by the AVMA, I started
to search for clearer answers. What do they mean by “certain
cases”, and what are the exemptions? This search has led to
the article you are reading. The first step in making an informed
decision on whether the changes are in the best interest for you
and your animals is to know the WHOLE story. The goal of this article
is to bring awareness of the whole story, and to help clear up the
confusion surrounding the controversy.
In the beginning of January, I brought the topic up at a Cooking
Lake Saddle Club meeting, a group I belong to. I was curious as
to how many people knew about the amendments, so I started by asking,
“How many people have heard about the proposed changes to
the Vet Act?” Approximately 25% of the people raised their
hands.
My next question, “How many people believe the following defines
who a vet is and what a vet does?” I read the current Vet
Act, which reads:
Section 1 (p) of the act 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.”
Everyone agreed this description fit veterinarians.
No one objected to veterinarians having complete jurisdiction over
this definition, a jurisdiction provided to them by law: 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.”
I prepared my audience with another question, “How many people
believe veterinarians should have complete jurisdiction according
to the new proposed definition of veterinarian medicine?”
I read the proposed definition, which reads:
Replace the current definition with one, which describes what “veterinary
medicine” is, namely “that branch of knowledge that
relates to maintaining the health of animals and to preventing,
diagnosing and healing diseases and injuries to animals.”
Add a further definition to the “practice
of veterinary medicine”, to more fully reflect the range of
medical services performed with respect to an animal, including:
a) advising, demonstrating, teaching, inspecting, regulating or
conducting research in respect to 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 for
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 of 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 death of an animal.
Not a single person at the riding club meeting
agreed veterinarians should have complete jurisdiction over everything
stated in the proposed definition. A common response is, “That
definition is ludicrous! That will never pass!” Parts of the
definition appear to be outrageous. For example, a 1998 survey of
disease-related deaths among pets done by the non-profit Morris
Animal Foundation found cancer to be the leading cause of death
among dogs and cats. Yet the AVMA is claiming that veterinarians
are now solely capable of preventing cancer! The number of cases
of cancer continues to rise in humans and animals, under the care
of conventional medicine. They are clearly not capable of preventing
all diseases. However ludicrous the proposed definition seems, do
not be lulled into believing it won’t be passed. And let me
spell this out: If the proposed amendment is passed by the legislature
the way it is now, it will be illegal for you to hire anyone but
a veterinarian or animal health technician to prevent, diagnose,
treat and heal diseases and injuries in animals. (There are a handful
of exceptions and I will cover this later.)
Recipe for Passing a Controversial Issue
Ingredient #1:
Be selective in who you tell. Why is it that hardly any pet owners
know about the proposed amendment? The initial revision of the definition
was prepared by Human Resources and Employment, who then gave it
to “stakeholders” for their input. And who was on the
original list of “stakeholders” back in the fall of
2005? When I asked Mr. Pritchard from Human Resources for a specific
list of names of the original “stakeholder” list, I
was told this list is “confidential”. I do know Todd
Williams, an equine dentist, was one of the original stakeholders,
as he told me this himself. Did the original list of “stakeholders”
include holistic practitioners whose livelihoods will be affected?
And you’d think the large customer base of pet owners that
veterinarians service would be a high priority on the “stakeholder”
list. I can safely say they are not from the many people I’ve
talked to who have never heard of the proposed amendments. I found
out through my very helpful MLA, Rob Lougheed, the list did include
producers of beef, chicken, turkey and pork. You can probably answer
my next question: How many chickens, cows, turkeys and pigs raised
for human consumption receive massage therapy? Which leads me to
my last question: If animal producers are given priority over companion
animal owners, what does that make pet owners -- chopped liver??
The AVMA put out a six page color advertisement for their one hundred
years of veterinary medicine in the Edmonton Journal and Calgary
Herald on January 22, 2006, and all it says about the amendment
is, “Provincial legislation is currently being considered
for amendment. Changes are necessary to facilitate the ongoing effectiveness
of regulated veterinary medicine in Alberta.” Human Resources
and Employment were giving original stakeholders the rationale,
“The proposed amendments would address concerns noted by the
Alberta Court of Appeal that the current definition of “veterinary
medicine” is too general in nature.” You might be interested
in knowing that three months before this advertisement, the Alberta
Beef Producers advised Human Resources and the AVMA of this:
The rationale given for the proposed amendment gives
an erroneous impression of the concerns noted by the Alberta Court
of Appeal. Full knowledge of the issue before the Court of Appeal
and the findings made by the Court put a different light on the
proposed amendment and should be fully disclosed to stakeholders
when seeking their input. This is particularly important when one
is dealing with legislation that creates a professional monopoly
and prohibits others from providing services which help producers
and others maintain the health of their animals and prevent disease
and injury.
Now the Honourable Mike Cardinal of Human Resources says, “…
Human Resources and Employment will continue to work with all parties
interested in veterinary medicine, to ensure that the VPA continues
to protect the public interest and safeguard animal welfare in Alberta.”
However, when asked about holding a forum for pet owners to voice
their concerns, Mr. Pritchard, of Human Resources, did not feel
a forum would be productive. Up until the writing of this article,
the AVMA has responded with silence to my question of where and
when a forum will take place for companion animal owners. At the
end of a two hour private meeting with Mr. Pritchard from Human
Resources, he “advised” me not to write my article until
after the amendment is passed through the legislature as it may
tarnish my reputation. Let me put this one out there. Are they afraid
of the backlash of the public who do not feel “safeguarding
animal welfare” includes making it illegal for us to hire
alternative health care providers for our animals?
Ingredient #2:
Don’t tell the WHOLE story, especially to the MLAs. As I was
researching the amendment, I found there were conflicting statements
coming from the MLAs and the AVMA. When I asked Mr. Pritchard from
Human Resources how the MLAs are being informed on the Veterinarian
Profession Act amendment, he told me, “They’re being
informed by my department.” So what are the MLAs telling their
concerned constituents? MLA George Rogers replied to one of his
very concerned constituents, Mrs. Radke. In his letter he says,
“However, 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.” George
Rogers goes on to say, “… holistic practitioners…
and many others are still exempt and can continue to treat animals
as they do now”. After you swim through all the exemptions,
the bottom line is there is no exemption allowing an animal holistic
practitioner to be hired by an animal owner. In my two hour private
meeting with Mr. Pritchard, from Human Resources, he finally admitted
that, “It is possible holistic practitioners may be affected.”
So how many letters has George Rogers given with this misleading
information that the proposed amendment will have no impact on holistic
practitioners? I want to make it clear; my intent is not to undermine
the integrity of our MLAs. I simply want to show you what information
the MLA’s have been given, or what they believe, and what
kind of information they are passing on to you – the concerned
public. And remember, it is the MLAs who vote on the amendment when
it is presented to the Legislature!
George Rogers isn’t the only MLA circulating misleading information,
for there are many. MLA Fred Lindsay responds to his constituent,
Mrs. Mack, that Alberta veterinarians are granted “an exclusive
scope of practice.” However, the court case in which Mr. Pequin
won proves the Scope of Practice is legally not as “exclusive”
as you may be led to believe. Mr. Lindsay continues, “Minister
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.”
Let me remind you what Mr. Pritchard from Human Resources said,
“It is possible holistic practitioners may be affected.”
The MLAs are also joined by the Minister of Agriculture in providing
misleading information. Honourable Doug Horner who writes, “The
only changes being contemplated to the VPA relate to the definition
of veterinary medicine, not who can practice veterinary medicine
or “parts of veterinary medicine.” Let’s look
at the court case that Mr. Pequin won. The Honourable Justice Bielby
of the Court of Queen’s Bench ruled, “…the Act
does not afford registered veterinarians the exclusive right to
practice equine dentistry either expressly or as a result of necessary
implication arising from an overriding concern for public safety.”
In regards to the definition, Justice Bielby says, “Had it
wished to include dentistry it could have done so expressly, as
it did with regard to surgery and obstetrics. Failure to make such
an express addition to the definition indicates an intention to
exclude dentistry.” The Court of Appeal upheld Justice Bielby’s
ruling. “Anything which is not clearly prohibited may be done
with impunity by anyone not a member of these closed associations.”
This decision was up-held by the Supreme Court. Clearly, in a court
of law, the definition will be used to determine who can practice
“veterinary medicine”, as it did in Mr. Pequin’s
case. Change the definition, and it will change who can legally
provide animal health care. The problem is the proposed definition
covers everything; preventing, healing, treatment of whatever nature,
and even the act of teaching, advising, and demonstrating as part
of “veterinarian medicine”. 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.” My question to Hounourable Doug Horner: How do
you plan on rectifying this misleading statement with all the people
you sent your form letter to? As of the writing of this article,
you can also read Mr. Horner’s entire letter on the AVMA web
site. Yes, the AVMA web site. Why didn’t the AVMA inform the
Minister of Agriculture about the statement’s misleading wording,
instead of me?
Ingredient #3
Confusion is your ally. Out of the few people who know about the
controversy, how many understand the issue clearly enough to make
an informed decision? An equine massage therapist, who has been
following the issue very closely and for a long time, recently said
to me, “I’m so confused. I don’t know what to
think.” Exactly! When you’re confused, you can’t
make an informed decision. So these confused and concerned people
contact their MLAs. Then the MLAs, many of whom, respond with misleading
or false assurances. To add to the confusion, the AVMA throws in
a dash of doubt into the recipe with this quote, “The AVMA
is concerned that there is misinformation regarding the impact of
the redefinition of veterinary medicine being propagated. Individuals
have taken the definition out of the context of the legislation
and have consequently misled many people." I asked Duane Landals,
Registrar of the AVMA to back up this quote and give me some specific
examples of the type of “misleading information being propagated”.
He has not been co-operative in providing an answer.
Ingredient #4
Twist the truth to your favor. I’m told in the media world,
this is called “spinning”.
• “The proposed amendments would address concerns noted
by the Alberta Court of Appeal that the current definition of ‘veterinary
medicine’ is too general in nature.” It is important
to note the AVMA initiated the changes to the definition. The Court
of Appeal did not note any concerns that the definition needed to
be changed.
• The AVMA received a letter of complaint from a member of
the public and that is why they applied a court injunction against
Mr. Pequin. In the complaint letter, Mr. Clark writes, “I
am enclosing a page from the local newspaper, I know the writer
knows nothing about horses or their mouths … him and the woman
he lives with (from Germany) are working a real scam on any inexperienced
horse owner that they can get a hold of through their advertising
etc., mostly just plain Bullshit.” Firstly, Mr. Pequin’s
intention was not of advertising. The Valley Views Newspaper asked
Mr. Pequin for information on equine dentistry. And “the woman
he lives with” is his wife -- who’s an Alberta registered
vet. Mr. Clark goes on to say, “The enclosed article speaks
for itself, some of these victims get quite a large bill after being
taken by these two shysters.” If this article was so revealing,
why isn’t the AVMA quoting from it? And why did they not yank
the license of the wife, a vet, who they do have jurisdiction over
– if there truly was a sham going on? It is of concern if
one letter of complaint can result in a court injunction to an alternative
health care provider. Worse yet, the letter was not written by a
customer, and with no proof of harm to animals.
• The AVMA was forced to take Mr. Pequin to court because
of his uncooperative nature. The AVMA refuses to give me a copy
of the first letter the AVMA sent to Mr. Pequin which might have
provoked his “uncooperative” nature.
• Dr. Duane Landals 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
can not rely on the regulatory process to protect them in all cases.”
I wondered how busy they are protecting us, so I asked him for a
yearly average of the number of injunctions, and whether the average
has risen since the Court ruling. He replied that in the time he’s
been in the AVMA office (over five years), there has been one successful
injunction; someone giving vaccines to animals in their homes.
• According to Dr. Ollis, Chief Provincial Veterinarian, “the
court erred.” The AVMA believes the current definition was
meant to be broad and was meant to include equine dentistry. In
the Court of Queen’s Bench ruling, Justice Bielby says, “Legislative
drafters would have known that those areas not expressly included
in a statutory definition would be considered to be excluded.”
In the same court ruling, you will find this document written by
the AVMA in 1990 addressed to Todd Williams, an equine dentist:
“… it is the opinion of the Alberta Veterinary Medical
Association Council that the routine dental care of horses does
not fall under the definition of veterinary medicine in accordance
with the Veterinary Profession Act.” Yes, you read that right.
In 1990 routine dental care was not veterinary medicine, says the
AVMA.
• Mr. Pritchard is quoted in an article on Alberta Equine
On-line News saying, “the fundamental reason for the change
is to define the realm of veterinary medicine so that animal welfare
is not compromised”. I asked Mr. Pritchard if he had expertise
in the realm of animal welfare. He answered no. He gets his expertise
on animal welfare from the AVMA. Part two of this article will raise
many concerns of the AVMA’s expertise on animal welfare. You
will hear from many angry Alberta horse owners who do not feel the
AVMA has animal welfare as their over-riding interest.
• Dr. Ollis says changes are needed to stop people from doing
things like castrating their own animals without anesthetics. However,
in the current exemptions you can treat your own animals. So this
does not stop people from performing painful surgeries on their
own animals. This could be easily rectified by stating “no
castration…” like another province does. The other exemptions
include, trade for non-surgical services with a neighbour, assistance
in a time of urgent need, as long as it is done without hire, gain
or hope of reward. Specific people exempted are technologists working
under veterinarians, individuals empowered by other legislation
(human chiropractors & physiotherapists although they would
need a referral from a veterinarian), university researchers, ranchers
and their employees, and farriers. Did you notice I underlined farriers?
Farriers, who trim horses’ feet, are the one health care provider
specialist you can hire, and without a referral. Yet, farriers don’t
have a legislative body governing them. Believe me, there are incompetent
farriers out there and they do cause long term harm and injury.
If the changes are really about animal welfare, why doesn’t
the AVMA put the same conditions on farriers that they are putting
on all other non-veterinarian animal health care providers?
• AVMA states, "We are confident that when considered
within the context of the Act, it will not adversely affect livestock
or pet owners and does not impose additional restrictions on their
current activities.” Now, I’m no lawyer, but I do know
that “intentions” do not stand up in a court of law.
The only “context” that matters is the legal interpretations.
If the AVMA is using their lawyers to help word the definition,
I can guarantee they are considering all the legal interpretations.
Many possible legal interpretations do exist, and I don’t
feel confident the AVMA wouldn’t act on these possibilities
in the future if it was to their benefit.
How about if we look at a place that has a similar definition and
see how it is working there. Since the proposed definition is the
most “exhaustive in Canada” says Mr. Pritchard, we’ll
have to look elsewhere, like the United States. The American Medical
Veterinary Association has been promoting the expansion of veterinary
jurisdiction throughout the states. How is it working south of the
border? Well, I can tell you there are many states such as Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Texas, New York, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and
Florida who have a lot of unhappy animal owners. So unhappy that
they have formed organizations to fight to get their rights back
and are trying to pass bills, or have passed bills just so they
can choose who can provide animal health care to their animals.
In Dave Duckett’s speech to the New Jersey assembly for the
safe passage of the first animal owners bill of rights he says,
It has become evident that each state has systematically changed
their veterinary practice act, or is in the process of doing so.
Cloaked in the sense of nobility, the changes to the practice acts
been passed off under the guise of updating … An argument
that is often given is the animals will suffer in the hands of these
lay people. After decades of non veterinarians treating animals,
where is the mountain of evidence that animals are being mistreated.
Where is the public out cry demanding that something should be done
to protect them from charlatans of the night? Therefore, why does
the industry need more legislation to empower the veterinary profession
to oversee something that does not even exist?
A group called the Florida Alliance for Animal Owners has communicated
many of their concerns, including selective enforcement, and the
vulnerability of the existing practicing animal health care providers.
In Wilmington, North Carolina, Judge Elton Tucker dismissed a case
against a Wilmington chiropractor who treated animals and was charged
with practicing veterinary medicine without a license. Her lawyer,
Sam Currin, said the law is too broad, and Judge Tucker seemed to
agree. After dismissing the charge against the defendant, Judge
Tucker said the law defining veterinary medicine would nearly exclude
priests from blessing animals. If increased jurisdiction is not
working for the United States, why would it work for us?
Mr. Pritchard told me that I need to convince him holistic practitioners
should be exempted. That will be the challenge of part two of this
article. Till then, I’d like to leave this quote with Mr.
Pritchard and all the MLAs. Alberta veterinarian, Dr. Dennis Rach
says in a 1994 March/April issue of the AVMA Newsletter written
for fellow veterinarians, “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.” He goes on to say that veterinarians need to become
competent in alternative therapies “so that our clients will
not be forced to use lay practitioners to provide alternative treatment
for their animals.” Even veterinarians admit there is a market
for holistic health! And even they admit they are not able to fill
this market! Dave Duckett, internationally known farrier and world
horseshoeing champion, says that in recent times animal owners,
“have become less than satisfied with the results of traditional
veterinary medicine and they have turned to a more holistic approach
in the healthcare treatment of their pets. This with remarkable
results, and may I add a dramatic reduction in cost.” However,
Mr. Pritchard from Human Resources assures me the amendment is about
animal welfare, not economics. I’m not so convinced.
Time to Give Birth to a new Model of Animal Health
Care
In part two, I will propose a well-researched new model of animal
health care. From this article, I wish to produce what Buddhism
calls “the middle way” – not a compromise between
two opposites on a straight-line continuum, but a higher middle
way, like the apex of a triangle. On the straight-line continuum
are animal owners wanting the right to have choices, qualified non-veterinarian
animal health care providers, and vitally important veterinarians.
In order to find the higher middle way, we first must truly understand
each point of view, as a pool of shared meaning is the birthplace
of synergy. Why not honor many forms of healing, such as Traditional
Chinese Medicine, which has a history over five thousand years old?
I also think it’s time the AVMA recognizes that animal owners
don’t want an authoritative veterinarian-client-patient relationship.
Let’s create a model for Canada that considers animal welfare
in its broadest terms of physical, mental and even spiritual. I
love the following quote because it says exactly what I feel. "It
does not matter whether medicine is old or new, as long as it brings
about a cure. It matters not whether theories be eastern or western,
so long as they prove to be True." - Dr. Jen Hsou Lin, D.V.M,
Ph.D.
In part two of my article, I will also delve deeper into the structural
flaws of the self-governing Alberta Veterinarian Medical Association.
Many self-governing associations have no longer become accountable
to the public, but to themselves. Is the AVMA following in these
footsteps? Does every self-governing association like the AVMA have
a “phantom letter writer” from within their association
leaving letters that the AVMA complains is not enhancing “the
image of veterinarians”? In my opinion, if anyone is not enhancing
the image of veterinarians, it is their governing body, the AVMA.
And then there is the question of how vital is the new Calgary Vet
College being created, a college that will cost taxpayers $60 Million
dollars. In Oct 2005, Sheila Pratt from the Edmonton Journal writes,
“This new school is Lyle Oberg’s little folly and it
was political from the outset … The vet association said it
did a survey of its members on the need for a school, though the
public didn’t see it. Besides, that’s hardly the kind
of in-depth needs assessment you’d expect to precede this
kind of major investment.”
Now that you are informed of what is truly at stake, you have a
choice to make. Do you want the right to have choices when it comes
to the health of your pets, or do you want to be protected? It is
very possible the amendment may be presented to the Legislature
as early as Fall 2006 if a MLA has already been sought in presenting
the matter to the Legislature. The time is NOW to let your voice
be heard. Tell them companion animal owners DO want a forum before
the proposed amendment is presented to the Legislature. Specifically
ask them when it will be. Ask to be added to the “stakeholder”
list. Tell them you value that the act defines what a veterinarian
does, but you want to keep your right to choices as well. Ask them
to add something like the following to the exemption list of the
Veterinary Profession Act:
Under the supervision of the owner of an animal,
an independent contractor can be hired and provide non-medical health
care services including, but not limited to, acupressure, aromatherapy,
animal communication, flower essence therapy, homeopathy, light
therapy, magnet therapy, massage therapy, hydrotherapy, nutritional
counseling including herbs, and equine dentistry.
An independent contractor who provides non-medical
health care services for animals and is not a veterinarian must:
(a) Obtain a business license within their province
(b) Advise the animal owner of his or her knowledge
or experience with the services that will be provided;
(c) Produce his or her credentials upon the request
of an owner of an animal that is being treated;
(d) Refrain from engaging in animal cruelty; and
(e) Refrain from advertising in any way that implies
that he or she is a veterinarian.
Contact the AVMA: www.avma.ab.ca / ph: (780) 489-5007 / fax: (780)
484-8311 / e-mail: avma@avma.ab.ca Contact Honourable Mike Cardinal
of Human Resources and Employment: Phone: (780) 415-4800 / Fax:
(780) 422-9556. Ask them any of the many questions posed in this
article if you’d like. And contact your MLA. Remember this
is the person who represents you, and this is the person who will
be voting on the amendments to the definition of veterinary medicine
when it is presented to the Legislature.
And finally, why hasn’t this controversy hit main stream media??
Two things Mr. Pritchard and I do agree on are:
1) the Act should be about animal welfare
2) two things people are passionate about are their children and
their animals
On Jan 18th, 2006, I was reading the Edmonton Sun and found a good
reason why it hasn’t hit the media yet. There are many other
important issues that don’t hit the media either. I read Paul
Stanway’s column. It was titled, “Refusing to apologize
the wrong way to go.” It was about the settlement of a class-action
lawsuit that alleged the province [department of Human Resources
and Employment] dealt in an illegal manner with people receiving
AISH, widows’ pensions, and social assistance payments. He
goes on to say, “This was no small snafu. It involved thousands
of Albertans, millions of tax dollars, and went on for years. It’s
great that the province has finally agreed to deal fairly with this
vulnerable group of people, but how come it all happened so quietly?”
You never know though, maybe mainstream media will agree with myself
and Mr. Pritchard and realize that people are passionate about their
animals and they would be very interested in learning about this
controversy. If you are interested in receiving a copy of Part Two
of the Animal Health Care Controversy when it is ready, please e-mail
me at harmonyhorses@primus.ca.
Blessings,
Sonja Christopher
