A Legal Challenge
Legislation governing veterinary medicine, which affects the practice of equine dentistry, varies from province to province, state to state, and country to country. In some places, the legal right to perform dentistry is specifically and exclusively given to licensed veterinarians; in others, non-veterinary dental technicians are restricted to performing limited procedures under direct supervision of veterinarians. An adversarial relationship between governing veterinary bodies, which oversee legislation, and non veterinary dental technicians is not unusual in many jurisdictions, but in Alberta, where the Veterinary Profession Act does not specifically restrict laypersons from practicing equine dentistry, there has long been a friendly association between veterinarians and non-veterinary equine dentists.
This friendly association may be changing. A legal challenge has been initiated by the Council of the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) to the practice of a Valleyview, Alberta area non-veterinary equine dentist. An application for an injunction to compel the dentist to cease his practice is scheduled to go to court on June 20, 2002. The AVMA asserts that in the course of engaging in equine dentistry, the Valleyview man is practicing veterinary medicine as defined by the Veterinary Profession Act and is therefore acting unlawfully.
The AVMA's challenge in the case of the Valleyview dentist is founded on the contention that dentistry falls within the purview of "veterinary medicine" as defined by the Veterinary Profession Act, being a "medical service performed with respect to an animal." Specifically exempted from the Veterinary Act are farriers and anyone "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." Dentistry is not specifically exempted, so is therefore considered to be included in the definition of "veterinary medicine."
The pending court case has rung alarm bells for dental practitioners across the province. According to his own account, the range of the Valleyview dentist's practice is typical of that of other non-veterinary dental practitioners. It is anticipated by non-veterinary dentists that should the AVMA succeed in getting an injunction in this instance the precedent will effectively make it illegal for the estimated 15 dentists currently practicing on a regular basis in the province to continue to perform dentistry.
Because of the potential for the Valleyview case to affect his practice (as well as those of others), one of Alberta's leading equine dentists, Todd Williams of Turner Valley, Alberta, has sought intervenor status in the court proceedings. Williams travels extensively throughout North America consulting with horse owners and veterinarians and performing dental procedures on horses. He has been practicing since 1990 and since that time has worked with more than 85 different veterinarians in Alberta alone. Should he be granted intervenor status, Williams will be allowed to make submissions to the court regarding the pending case. While he would rather not have to intervene, Williams feels it necessary to defend his livelihood and to ensure that his equine patients and their owners are not deprived of his expertise and help. He hopes that even if he is not given intervenor status, his application itself will help draw attention to the fact that the Valleyview dentist may not be the only person affected by the court judgement. (At the time of writing, Williams is waiting for a judge's decision on his application.)
Equine dentists in Alberta are concerned that the AVMA wishes to follow the example of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, which have, according to Michael Q. Lowder in his May 1997 article in The Compendium, "decreed that most or all of [equine dentistry] should be performed by veterinarians." In the same vein, the AVMA's "Council Guidelines For Associating With Non-Veterinarians Practising Veterinary Medicine" of January, 2000, expresses concern with "incidents of unlicensed individuals practicing veterinary medicine contrary to the Veterinary Profession Act." The Guidelines note that "veterinarians in Alberta, with a few exempted cases, have exclusive scope of practise" in veterinary medicine except for a technologist "practicing under the direction and control of a registered veterinarian, who is an active member of the Alberta Association of Animal Health Technologists (AAAHT)."
Dr. Greg Andrews, a member of the AVMA General Council and its Equine Committee, denies that the Association's intention in initiating the injunction is to put an end to the practice of lay equine dentistry as a whole; rather, he points out that the action is precipitated by the complaint against the Valleyview dentist and addresses that concern only. He states that according to the Association's bylaws, it is obligated to respond to a complaint generated by a member of the public. The injunction addresses an isolated event; there is no secondary agenda and the equine dentists who are voicing concern have been assured many times that the AVMA is not gunning for them. Andrews notes that it is a source of frustration that there is mistrust on the part of the dentists in the AVMA's actions. Read more...