Changes to the Vet Act in Alberta

[Shorty Olson]

The Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has put forth proposed amendments to the Veterinary Practice Act that if accepted will change the definition of Veterinary Medicine. The proposed changes will give control (monopoly) to the AVMA over ALL aspects of animal health care.
As animal owners (not just horses) you need to be aware of these proposed changes that will effect animal health care in Alberta.
If you don't agree with the proposed amendments I strongly encourage you to fax and meet with your MLA and fax the Minister of Agriculture to let them know that you don't support the AVMA's proposed changes.
Here is a link to find out more information: http://aoa.successnetwork.ca
Or contact me for more info.
Regards,
Shorty

[bobit]

Wowser!

Copied and pasted from: http://aoa.successnetwork.ca/vpadoc.htm

CURRENT:

Inaccurate Definition of Veterinary Medicine
Currently, 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

PROPOSED:

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 “practise 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) practising 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.


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. In addition, the proposed amendments would conform to the other Alberta Professional Legislation, notably the Health Professions Act, the principals contained in which is the basis for Alberta professional legislation.

Go to the site there are lots of tools in the "What can I do about it section"

[PS]

Thanks for posting that info, Shorty.

As a practising Equine Therapist I am extremely concerned about this proposed legislation. If passed, this will effectively nullify my education and prevent me from helping horses..... even though what I do is complimentary to Veterinary medicine, and is in no way derogatory. Probably 90% of the horses I see have already been written off by vets as "unsound". Most are on a course of drug therapy to "manage" the symptoms, which in no way is addressing the root of the problem. What I do addresses the the cause, and ideally returns the horse to optimal health without the need for pharmaceuticals.

Beyond my own conscience and therapy practise, I am even more concerned as a horse owner. I quite enjoy having the right to give my horses shots, deworm them, and administer drugs/herbs/supplements as I see fit. If this act is changed, I will no longer have the legal ability to do any of those things. Nor will I be able to call an Equine Dentist, Chiropractor, Physiotherapist, or even treat my own animals in any way.

Here's food for thought......... I alone decide which health practitioner my son sees, and what treatments he will receive. Why should I not have the very same freedom to choose for my animals?

Peggy Sue
Equipoise Equine Therapy

[Donna M]

Here's food for thought......... I alone decide which health practitioner my son sees, and what treatments he will receive. Why should I not have the very same freedom to choose for my animals?

Well said PS what ever happened to FREEDOM of CHOICE!!!!!! Some of us prefer not to use drugs if we don't have to.[/quote]

[Phil Buote]

The Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is working with the office of the Minister of Human Resources and Employment on amending the definition of veterinary medicine in The Veterinary Profession Act. The courts have decided that the current definition is flawed. As the association responsible for administering the Act, the AVMA is responsible for making sure the act will hold up in court if challenged.

The proposed amendments do not seek to make veterinarians the sole providers of health care. That is not rational, nor possible - we have a shortage of veterinary manpower in this province as it is. To suggest a veterinarian needs to be present for every calf castration or horse vaccination is preposterous. Most, if not all, veterinarians will agree.

The proposed amendment concerns the definition of veterinary medicine only. If you look at the Veterinary Professions Act, at:
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/acts/V02.cfm
there is an entire subsection (PART 1, Subsection (2) (1)a-i) on exclusions for ranchers, farriers, animal owners, professions covered under other professional legislation (Physiotherapists, chiropractors etc), good samaritans, researchers, custom cattle feeders and others that permit these people to provide care and even do surgery (castrations, dehorning) on animals. This subsection, and everything else in the Act, will remain exactly the same as it always has been.

The Minister is very clear that no person or group will lose their ability to make a living .

The public will always have a choice as to who will work on their animals.

Open public consultation is an integral part of the process. The Minister will distribute the proposed amendment to all stakeholders.

The office of the AVMA has contacted all veterinarians in the province to solicit feedback on this matter.

If you feel strongly about this issue, please contact your MLA, but make sure you are well informed.

Thank you,

Phil Buote, DVM
AVMA Councillor[url][/url]

[randa]

Good to see you here Phil!!

I am glad that you set the record straight.

[bobit]

Yes - thank you Phil

I was trying to read the document, but I found it hard to weed through.

Can you just tell me....how does this affect those who practice horse dentistry as a profession? I understand there has been controversy in this area before.

[Donna M]

Thanks for the clarification Phil!!!

[bobit]

Copied and pasted from: (The Vets side of the story) On the new definition. These areas do not apply. (meaning you can do them or hire someone to do them that isn't a vet) http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/acts/V02.cfm

(2) Subsection
(1) does not apply to the following:

(a) a
technologist practising 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.

Ok - so we will still be able to have farriers do corrective shoeing, get a chiro and a massage. Correct

I see NOTHING saying that we can get a "horse dentist" to do our horses teeth in this exception.

Phil - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hmmm.....

[Shorty Olson]

I believe that the proposed amendments will in effect make veterinarians the sole providers of MOST health care for animals in Alberta. I agree with Dr. Buote that the: (a) AHTs under a vet's supervision, (b)a horseshoer, (c)an animal owner or their employee, (d)ranchers helping each other, (e) an animal owner or their employee who rents leases or custom feeds from or for the owner, if the owner consents, (f) procedures like dehorning and castrating farm animals, (g) researchers, (h) emergencies, (i) carrying out of the practice of a profession or occupation under the authority of any other enactment, will probably still be exempt from the proposed definition of veterinary medicine.

With regards to (i) ...with the authority of any other enactment, the thing that you have to keep in mind is that the physios and chiropractors and massage people etc. DO NOT have an enactment that allows them to work on animals, their enactments are for humans!!!!

So if the non-veterinary practitioner doesn't fall into one of the categories above, they will be chargeable for practicing veterinary medicine without a license.

If the AVMA didn't intend to disallow all of the already practicing non-veterinarians from working on animals, why have they gone to such lengths to include: advising, demonstrating, teaching, inspecting... examining, diagnosing, prescribing, manipulating and treating for the prevention, alleviation or correction of a disease, injury, CONDITION, deformity, defect, or lesion WITH OR WITHOUT the use of ANY INSTRUMENT, APPLIANCE, drug or veterinary biologic ... SELLING a drug or veterinary biologic, MEDICINE, APPLIANCE, OR TREATMENT OF WHATEVER NATURE TO AN ANIMAL ... PRACTICING VETERINARY DENTISTRY ... in their proposed definition of veterinary medicine.

Take another look at it and ask yourself "of all the people that could work on my animals (e.g. chiro, massage, dentist, psychic, physio, energy worker, nutritionist etc.) how many of them would be effected by this proposed definition of vet med"?

I am quite sure that we will hear statements like "we don't intend to enforce this" or "we just put that part into the definition, we don't really care about it", "or it won't affect the people already working in the field" or "we will grandfather the people already doing it". Make no mistake that if it is the definition of veterinary medicine, it will become the law of the land.

I also agree with what Dr. Buote suggested, if you feel strongly about this contact your MLA and make sure you are well informed.

Regards,
Shorty
[/u]

[Phil Buote]

Shorty wrote:

"With regards to (i) ...with the authority of any other enactment, the thing that you have to keep in mind is that the physios and chiropractors and massage people etc. DO NOT have an enactment that allows them to work on animals, their enactments are for humans!!!!"

That is correct. The thing to keep in mind is the individual associations (Physios and Chiros) that are responsible for overseeing their acts have said their members are permitted to work on animals under the direction of a veterinarian. That is THEIR associations that regualte THEIR members, not the AVMA.

Shorty also wrote:

"So if the non-veterinary practitioner doesn't fall into one of the categories above, they will be chargeable for practicing veterinary medicine without a license."

The AVMA doesn't worry about non-veterinary practitioners, there is no authority to "charge" them. The AVMA concerns itself with veterinarians and complaints from the public. If a veterinarian screws up, there is a very detailed discipline process that is followed. (Part 5 of The VPA) see http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/acts/V02.cfm
If a complaint from the public comes in about a non-veterinarian practitioner, it is investigated and perhaps an injunction is filed - it goes to court. Then the courts say (have said) our definition of what constitutes veterinary medicine is flawed, and here we are, trying to amend it.

And Shorty wrote:

If the AVMA didn't intend to disallow all of the already practicing non-veterinarians from working on animals, why have they gone to such lengths to include: advising, demonstrating, teaching, inspecting... examining, diagnosing, prescribing, manipulating and treating for the prevention, alleviation or correction of a disease, injury, CONDITION, deformity, defect, or lesion WITH OR WITHOUT the use of ANY INSTRUMENT, APPLIANCE, drug or veterinary biologic ... SELLING a drug or veterinary biologic, MEDICINE, APPLIANCE, OR TREATMENT OF WHATEVER NATURE TO AN ANIMAL ... PRACTICING VETERINARY DENTISTRY ... in their proposed definition of veterinary medicine.

The reason the legislation writers have "gone to such lengths to include: advising, demonstrating, teaching etc..." is as follows:
When the current legislation was written years ago, it was thought there was no way one could fashion a definition that would encompass all that Veterinary Medicine could become in the future. The definition was left puposefully vague. Unfortunately the courts thought the definition was too vague and here we are. The Alberta Courts referred to an old court ruling from Quebec that said professional legislation needs to have EVERYTHING clearly spelled out in their definition of scope of practice. In an effort to appease the courts we are trying to be very, very clear about the definition.

Bobit wrote

"Ok - so we will still be able to have farriers do corrective shoeing, get a chiro and a massage. Correct

I see NOTHING saying that we can get a "horse dentist" to do our horses teeth in this exception."

There is no exemption for equine dentistry. It is the opinion of the AVMA, and most Provincial and State veterinary associations and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and the American Veterinary Medical Association, that dentistry, when performed on an animal, is veterinary medicine. I will not discuss this opinion in this forum.

The Minister has made it clear that he wants no more rules, nothing more restrictive and that no one will be prevented from earning their living. The AVMA has in place advanced certification for technicians allowing them to perform procedures without direct veterinary supervision (looking to the future). The Minister has the power to provide ministerial exemptions for non-veterinarians now engaged in the practice of equine dentistry.

The question is, will you (the public) have any assurance that the person doing the work is qualified and accountable and if something goes wrong, where do you turn? Does the public deserve to be protected or is it buyer be ware?

This amendment has big implications with regards to the Labour Mobility Agreement that standardizes requirements for veterinarians and other professionals across Canada. Think of the problems with international trade (Beef Exports?) if we don't have a clear definition of who is a veterinarian in Alberta.

Respectfully,

Phil[url][/url]

[Shorty Olson]

Then the courts say (have said) our definition of what constitutes veterinary medicine is flawed, and here we are, trying to amend it.

Here is a link to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench written judgment: http://www.equinedental.com/l06-cruling.htm
Dr. Buote, could you show me anywhere where the courts have said that your definition of veterinary medicine is flawed?

The reason the legislation writers have "gone to such lengths to include: advising, demonstrating, teaching etc..." is as follows:
When the current legislation was written years ago, it was thought there was no way one could fashion a definition that would encompass all that Veterinary Medicine could become in the future. The definition was left puposefully vague. Unfortunately the courts thought the definition was too vague and here we are. The Alberta Courts referred to an old court ruling from Quebec that said professional legislation needs to have EVERYTHING clearly spelled out in their definition of scope of practice. In an effort to appease the courts we are trying to be very, very clear about the definition.

Here is an excerpt from the written judgment that indicates that the AVMA chose to narrow their definition of veterinary medicine in 1984 from the previous act in 1964:
[52] Interestingly, an examination of the legislative history of the Act shows that recent amendments may in fact have narrowed the scope of the monopoly protected by the definition of "veterinary medicine". Equine dentistry may have fallen within a veterinarian's exclusive mandate under previous legislation but, if so, disappeared from Alberta legislation with the repeal of the Veterinary Surgeons Act , S.A. 1964, c. 104.

[53] The repealed legislation defined " veterinary medicine, in s. 2(c)(ii) as follows:

"veterinary medicine" means any professional service usually performed by a veterinary surgeon or veterinarian including

(i) the application of surgery or medicine to animals,

(ii) the diagnosis or treatment of , and the prescribing, treating, manipulating or operating for the prevention, alleviation or correction of any disease, lesion, disorder or physical condition of animals , with or without the use of instruments, appliances, medicine, drugs, preparations or anaesthetics, and

(iii) the giving of advice in respect of any of the matters mentioned in subclauses (i) and (ii),

with a view to obtaining a fee or salary. (emphasis added)

[54] Conceivably the filing or extraction of horses' teeth could have fallen within such a definition which was replaced with the current definition during the substantial overhaul of the legislation which led to the 1984 introduction of the current Act containing a definition of "veterinary medicine" which does not contain a wide list of expressly included areas of practice.



When the Vet Act was rewritten in 1984 it was purposely narrowed to the current definition, not broadened to include almost everything as you would lead us to believe is necessary now.

The Minister has made it clear that he wants no more rules, nothing more restrictive and that no one will be prevented from earning their living. The AVMA has in place advanced certification for technicians allowing them to perform procedures without direct veterinary supervision (looking to the future). The Minister has the power to provide ministerial exemptions for non-veterinarians now engaged in the practice of equine dentistry.

The Minister is very clear that no person or group will lose their ability to make a living .

Which Minister are you referring to? Are they willing to put what you claim in writing? Are you implying that this Minister is going to make an exemption for equine dentists?

The public will always have a choice as to who will work on their animals.

Are you willing to put this in writing?

I am anxious to hear your response Dr. Buote, and Thank You for sharing your views.

Regards,
Shorty

[Phil Buote]

Shorty wrote:

"Dr. Buote, could you show me anywhere where the courts have said that your definition of veterinary medicine is flawed?"

In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling, not the initial decision, at:

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003 ... ca0089.pdf

The Supreme Court of Canada decision to which the Alberta Court referred reads:

".... Anything which is not clearly prohibited may be done with impunity by anyone not a member of these closed associations."

Shorty wrote:

"When the Vet Act was rewritten in 1984 it was purposely narrowed to the current definition, not broadened to include almost everything as you would lead us to believe is necessary now."

I won't pretend to know what the legislation writers were trying to do in 1984. My understanding was that the actual scope of practice was not broadened or narrowed. We didn't gain or lose anything, just like the proposed amendment does not seek to broaden or add to our scope of practice now. The legislation was re-written to make the definition relevant for future developments in science and technology. Similarly, it is my view that there isn't any debate over what the practice of veterinary medicine is, just how we define it.


Shorty wrote:

"Which Minister are you referring to? Are they willing to put what you claim in writing? Are you implying that this Minister is going to make an exemption for equine dentists?"

The minister that oversees the VPA is the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, not Agriculture. All Ministers have the power to grant exemptions. It is not my place to say if he will use that power or not. I am implying nothing.

Shorty wrote:

"The public will always have a choice as to who will work on their animals.

Are you willing to put this in writing?"

This is my opinion. In my last post:

"The question is, will you (the public) have any assurance that the person you chose to work on your animal is qualified and accountable? If something goes wrong, where do you turn? Does the public deserve to be protected or is it buyer be ware?

I would be interested to hear your response to these last three questions.

Great discussion,

Phil

[Shorty Olson]

Thank You Dr. Buote, for your response.
Let me refer to your comment about where the courts have said that the AVMA's definition of Veterinary Medicine is Flawed.

".... Anything which is not clearly prohibited may be done with impunity by anyone not a member of these closed associations."

How does this mean that the definition is Flawed??? When I read the statement from the Supreme Court it says to me (in this context) that anything that is not prohibited by the Vet Act may be done by non-veterinarians without punishment. How is that a Flaw? How is that saying that the definition is too vague??? To my knowledge there is NOTHING in the court documents that says the definition of veterinary medicine is Flawed or Too Vague. Your reason behind the proposed changes appears to be totally false!
So, I believe that the AVMA's purpose for changing the definition is to grant more control over animal health care to their members. Any non-veterinarians who work on animals that don't fall into the exemptions, (AHTs, animal owners etc) will not be able to continue working on animals if these proposed changes take place. Therefore the work that these non-vets were doing would have to fall onto the veterinarians, creating more work (income) for vets.

I won't pretend to know what the legislation writers were trying to do in 1984. My understanding was that the actual scope of practice was not broadened or narrowed. We didn't gain or lose anything, just like the proposed amendment does not seek to broaden or add to our scope of practice now. The legislation was re-written to make the definition relevant for future developments in science and technology. Similarly, it is my view that there isn't any debate over what the practice of veterinary medicine is, just how we define it.

If you read the written decision of the original court case, Justice Bielby states: [52] Interestingly, an examination of the legislative history of the Act shows that recent amendments may in fact have narrowed the scope of the monopoly protected by the definition of "veterinary medicine". Equine dentistry may have fallen within a veterinarian's exclusive mandate under previous legislation but, if so, disappeared from Alberta legislation with the repeal of the Veterinary Surgeons Act , S.A. 1964, c. 104.

So the scope of practice was in FACT narrowed!

"The question is, will you (the public) have any assurance that the person you chose to work on your animal is qualified and accountable? If something goes wrong, where do you turn? Does the public deserve to be protected or is it buyer be ware?

To quote Justice Bielby again:[51] In the context of this evidence the fact that the Respondent does not belong to a professional organization which regulates and oversees his practice of equine dentistry does not compel the conclusion that he poses unacceptable risks to the public.

The answer to your first question is: will they have any assurances that they will be protected from the AVMA? I know that the AVMA is a "self regulating profession" that has disciplinary and complaint processes to guard the public. The fact of the matter is that most animal owners are reluctant to make a formal complaint against a veterinarian because they are afraid of the backlash and are afraid that they may be denied service from the veterinarian in the future.
There have been farriers and non-veterinary equine dentists practicing in this Province for well over 100 years, neither one of which has an enactment. The horse owning public has been self regulating these two industries all along through word of mouth advertising and referrals.
I strongly believe that a person doing a job on a daily basis is going to be more qualified and accountable than a general practitioner who has to do it all and know it all.
I also strongly believe that the public deserves to be protected from incompetent practice, and with regard to equine dentistry, I definitely believe it is a "buyer beware" market.
I very strongly believe that the public needs to be protected from a group having a monopoly on animal health care.

Thank You very much for your participation, Dr. Buote. It is nice to have an AVMA Council Member's view on all of this.

Regards,
Shorty

[admin]

This was on a different board so I moved it here for Cntryslam

whats going on WITH THIS chit?
I just got handed a letter saying that the vet's are trying to make it so that we cannot even attempt to take care of our own animal's-without them standing there breathing down our necks? Do we have time to call them for every single every lovin' thing, that happen's on a farm?? I sure the frig don't!
We can go buy cough syrup for our kid's over the counter, and no one is saying that we don't know what we are doing.
Everyone makes decision's based on prior knowledge, when confronting a sickness, diesease, or illness, and if you don't know-you go ask someone else in the field-it's been that way since,-well forever....why do the vetrainairian's think that they need to have the monopoly on that?
get back to me, if anyone has the answer to this latest pile of bunk.
postholes35@hotmail.com
Tomahawk, AB