The College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) has put forth a draft proposal that would require referral and supervision by a Veterinarian for any and all holistic care. You can read this document here.
I have a few things to say about this, as I’m sure you can imagine. To start, if you wish to express your thoughts about this proposal, send them by April 15, 2009 to:
Ms. Karen Smythe
Policy and Quality Assurance Manager
College of Veterinarians of Ontario
2106 Gordon Street Guelph, ON
N1L 1G6
Fax: (519)-824-6497 or (888) 662-9479
Words cannot express my fury at this proposal, but I’ll give it a try…
This document is proposing to subordinate ALL “Complementary and Alternative Medicine,” to the College of Veterinarians of Ontario. The CVO deems this to include (but not be limited to): “chiropractic care; physical therapy; rehabilitation therapy; massage therapy; homeopathy; acupuncture; nutraceutical therapy; and phytotherapy.”
The document then goes on to state that “only veterinarians have the education, knowledge, skills, and judgment to evaluate and integrate complementary and alternative veterinary medicine into a treatment plan for animals.”
How on earth can conventionally trained vets be able to “evaluate and integrate” alternative medicine?!!
And it continues: “Therefore performing alternative and complementary veterinary treatments, therapies and/or modalities on animals constitutes the practice of veterinary medicine such that these procedures may only be performed by a veterinarian or by a non-veterinarian who is directed and supervised by the veterinarian, within the context of a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship.”
In other words, the CVO is laying claim to ALL forms of healing and insisting that no one can touch an animal in a heeling manner unless under the supervision of a veterinarian.
This is an OUTRAGE.
Veterinarians receive very specific training and play a very important role in providing conventional medical care for animals that need that kind of treatment. This takes years of schooling and experience and they do a very good job at what they do.
It also takes years of schooling and training and experience to become proficient at other forms of medicine. A veterinarian does NOT have the knowledge to supervise this unless they have also undergone such extensive training. And how many have done so? A few weekend workshops does not a chiropractor, acupuncturist or homeopath make. These alternative heelers have spent years, or decades, in their training.
Let me give you an example to show how ridiculous this proposal really is. While living in the US, my dog at the time was treated by a very experienced acupuncturist who saved his life after conventional medicine failed him and recommended euthanasia. This acupuncturist had been practicing for decades and had even trained extensively in China. She TAUGHT acupuncture to veterinarians at the Tufts Veterinary College. And then they passed a ruling that she could only practice acupuncture under the supervision of a vet. In other words, she could only touch an animal under the supervision of one of her own students.
Does this make any sense? It sure doesn’t to me.
Another concern: Some holistic philosophies contradict conventional practices. As such, it is impossible to practice both simultaneously. I am thinking specifically of classical homeopathy, the modality I use most with my animals. Will the CVO deem it an unacceptable practice and bar me from seeking this treatment for my animals?
The CVO is claiming that this move is for the safety of our animals, but in effect what it will do is limit access to skilled practitioners of alternative heeling modalities, while ensuring that CVO members get a financial cut of what does manage to continue. In other words, it’s a power grab and a money grab.
Is veterinary practice in Ontario hurting that badly? Is it so threatened by people going to alternative practitioners that it has to resort to this? I wouldn’t be surprised. Every corner of this town has a vet clinic on it. There doesn’t seem to be any restriction on how many people graduate and set up practice. Ironically we have a horrendous shortage of doctors in this province, but vets are so plentiful that they are obviously desperate for clients. So much so that they are trying to take over the practices of other people. This is disgusting. I guess it also explains why they push people to buy so many drugs and chemicals for their pets and bully their clients into completely unnecessary (and very harmful) yearly vaccinations. Vets must be going broke and desperate times call for desperate measures. But this is going to really hurt our animals, and that makes me sick.
The document in question continues as follows: “The provision of any unsupervised and/or undirected and therefore uncoordinated service by non-veterinarians will be considered the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine by the CVO. Individuals who offer such services may be subject to a CVO investigation and prosecution.”
This means that any one trying to continue treating animals holistically risks being legally prosecuted by an organization that has far more money than they do. So who’s going to take that risk? Most holistic practitioners don’t exactly make a lot of money.
The draft go on to state, “Delegation to qualified off-site non-veterinarians for the provision of complementary/alternative veterinary medical treatment may constitute acceptable forms of indirect supervision of the case, but only if the veterinarian has first performed a patient assessment.”
In other words, you won’t be able to go to any holistic practitioner without have a vet first assess your animal, and then refer you. That means having to pay for the assessment, and then trusting that the vet you go to knows enough about a dozen other forms of medicine to know what the animal needs, and also who best to go to. Oh, and of course the vet (the CVO?) – with their oh-so indepth understanding of alternative medicine – is the one who will decide which of these holistic practitioners is deemed “qualified” to treat our animals.
The very idea of this proposal is infuriating. I disagree with much of conventional medicine, but it didn’t bother me as long as I was free to do what I wanted and was just left alone. If this proposal goes through, that will no longer be the case. And of course it will be a unilateral decision, so it will be up to vets to decide if they want to go ahead with this and I doubt anyone can stop them should they do so.
I have been working nearly exclusively with alternative heelers for over a decade (homeopathy, chiropractics, acupuncture and naturopathy) and my animals have become stronger and healthier as a result. I have also worked with conventional vets when I’ve needed their help, essentially with diagnostics and trauma (which is what I believe conventional medicine does best).
Veterinarians have a very important job to do. But they shouldn’t be trying to be all things to all people. They can’t. No one can. They need to stick to what they do best and let others do what they are trained to do.
Filed under: Medical Politics
Here, in the US, states make regulations. For instance, In NJ where I live, acupuncurists, Chinese Medicine physicians, chiropracters and homeopaths must all be vets in order to work on animals, but in different states, like Massachusetts, dogs and people sit in the same waiting room at the acupuncture clinic. (Yay Massachusetts!)
Despite the lack of support for holistic modalities for both animals and humans, I think the tide is turning. Slowly, but with each new generation, awareness is growing. Where not so long ago these practices were little heard of or thought to be unusual for animals, people nowadays don’t bat an eye when they hear about them.
Not sure how it is in Canada, but here, pharmaceutical companies exert a lot of influence on politics, especially pushing substandard pet food (which they manufacture and provide to vets for free. The vets then “prescribe” it for patients and make a huge profit on it. ) and of course, drugs.
There is also controversy here stirring over raw food. Students at (I think it was) Tufts Veterinary school had to fight administration to get raw food manufacturers in to give presentations on raw feeding. Also I hear rumblings about the FDA and raw food. Not good.
My personal opinion – same old story – it’s about money, not about what’s in the best interest of the consumer – much less about what’s in the best interest of animals.
Beth – Big Pharma rules here in Canada as well, although not as much as in the US. This move by the OVC is one step in that direction, however, and to me this is a HUGE step backwards. We have a lot of more freedom here in Canada with our pets, but I see that freedom being eroded in the name of “safety.” I find it all very worrisome because what I have come to believe as being in the best interest of my animals is in direct contrast to a lot of these views being pushed by Big Pharma.
What are you hearing about raw food? Surely they can’t prevent us from feeding our pets what we want? Or are they going to rule against commercial raw products?
Let me add a different point of view. first let me start by saying I don’t ever want to be sitting to see the same doctor that is about to treat my dog. At best it’s not sanitary and at worst just plain creepy.
As far as regulating the practitioners of holistic medicine I would think that there may be a need. Not to say vets should be policing it but I do feel someone should. Just as there are good and bad doctors there are good and bad people in holistic medicine. And I think I would be safe even stretching that to quacks and scam artists. Something should be set up to monitor the holistic practitioners and hold them accountable if they are indeed not what they claim to be.
Helene I know this is not going to be a welcome point of view with you so feel free to moderate this out if you see fit.
Joe – your points of view are always welcome
Regarding animals being treated at the same place as humans, for the most part that’s not how it works. My dogs’ chiropractor comes to a dog training facility and treats dogs there, not in her own clinic. She also travels to agility trials etc., and sets up a booth there. The same is true for canine massage and so on. My homeopath – who treats me and my animals – works exclusively by phone and email, although I would prefer to work in person. She is in North Carolina, so that makes it tough. Should I find someone closer whom I believe to be really talented, I would rather work in person.
The acupuncturist I took Jake to did treat both people and animals in the same clinic. I thought it was very cool. I don’t believe that animals are dirty or unsanitary, and since there is no real need for sterility of the environment (sterility of the needles, yes) I found it to be quite enjoyable. She would come out and call in Mr. Smith, and Ms. Jones, and then Mr. Jake. The dog was treated on the floor of the room, people got up on a table. No one seemed fussed about it. Jake and I did have to take a service elevator to her office as she was in a very fancy high rise in the downtown core and dogs were technically not allowed in the building.
I really thought the entire experience was quite enlightened. But then I am an advocate of breaking down this barrier we have created between humans and animals, a barrier we have created to be able to treat them as objects of utility the way we do (i.e. factory farming for food etc.).
As for regulation, certainly regulation is necessary. A bad homeopath can certainly cause more harm than good, despite what many people think. Holistic medicine is not benign, just because it is “natural.” So I fully agree that it is important to have regulation. However, the Veterinary College – an institution that has in its best interest the shutting down of alternative forms of medicine – is NOT the institution to do it. Each medical modality should be able to regulate itself. And that is what goes on for the most part. For example, in the US there is the American Holistic Veterinary Association (www.ahvma.org).
My biggest concern with all of this is the reduction of holistic medicine to an “alternative” or “complement” to conventional practices. It normalizes the idea that we go to the vet first, and only when conventional medicine fails do we seek alternatives. And the proposal would make sure that’s the way things go because we would be barred from exploring alternatives first. We would have to have a vet referral.
I do not subscribe to this approach to health care. I use alternative medicine for just about everything except for diagnostics and trauma. I have found, over the years, that this is simply a much more effective means of keeping my animals healthy. To have to go to a vet first would double the cost (at least) of very trip I take to an alternative practitioner, plus would force me to have ask my vet for permission to see such people. I find this absolutely preposterous.
Joe, I got a kick out of your opinion that seeing the same doctor as your dog is creepy. I think having one professional seeing both human and dog could have some interesting insights into a lot of things. As for the sanitation issue, I’m quite sure acupuncturists wash their hands – probably much more often than workers who prepare and serve you food.
I’m not against setting standards for anyone and I agree that without them there is room for harm to be done. Unfortunately, until the medical community – including the veterinary community – embraces many modalities which fall under the energy healing umbrella (and for which conclusive evidence of effectiveness exists) the standards and regulations cannot reasonably be expected to work effectively or make sense. How can regulatory bodies set standards for practices about which they know nothing?
Some view these as complementary or alternative practices. A more appropriate description is integrative, because as Helene states – we do need vets for a lot of things, and this competition between ‘traditional’ and ‘alternative’ should not exist.
People should have the right to have access to professional practitioners whom they see best fit to treat themselves and their animal companions,
Beth, in support of your last statement, let me provide an example:
Two years ago, Hannah lacerated her foot on broken glass and required emergency surgery. I naturally took her to a vet because vets excel at treating trauma. I was able to choose the best person for the problem. However, I wanted her recovery to be treated by a homeopath, because healing the chronic is what homeopaths do best. My homeopath said no to post-surgery anti-biotics. My vet was very upset at this and made me sign waivers before releasing Hannah without having administered the drugs. I acknowledged her concern and I knew the risks, but it was MY choice to make. I had my dog’s recovery supervised by my homeopath and Hannah was back on her feet within 2 weeks, a full 6 weeks faster than predicted by the surgeon.
Now, if I had to have a referral to go to this homeopath, and the vet disagreed with what she was recommending (i.e no antibiotics), would I have been able to get that referral? Would I even have known animal homeopaths exist? Homeopathic philosophy directly contradicts that of conventional medicine. I suspect the OCV would deem my homeopath an “unqualified” practitioner because she does not support the prescribing of antibiotics (or any drugs) except in life and death situations.
Beth I do agree with most of what you said, (except the same doctor). I really do believe there needs to be some entity to monitor holistic practitioners. Perhaps it could be composed of leaders in the field? A panel of peers or something along those lines.
I am sure the are lots, if not mostly responsible practitioners out there. But I am also sure there are practitioner/scammes taking advantage of people at every opportunity.
I think you need to have a way to separate the real practitioners from the snake oil salesman.
Joe – I completely agree with you, both about the need for some sort of regulation, and that it should come from a panel of peers.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that really we are the only ones who can take care of our health and that of our loved ones. Even in conventional medicine it is impossible for a doctor to be up on everything. It is up to us to monitor our own health and to question what doesn’t make sense. Just yesterday I spoke with someone who east an all raw, vegan diet. I found this fascinating and wanted to learn more. Turns out he had been in and out of hospital for months, and was finally diagnosed with Krohn’s disease. Doctors said surgery to remove a good part of his lower intestines plus medication for life.
This guy decided to explore alternatives first, and through his own research, came to this diet which has completely cured his condition. He went to many doctors and not one suggested a change of diet (strange, isn’t it?). But he had the freedom to explore alternatives and work with other people. When he went back to his primary doctor with his cure, the doctor didn’t want to hear about it. It was as if he (the doctor) didn’t want his fundamental beliefs shattered. Which is what holistic approaches to health tend to do. They deeply threaten conventional medicine, which is why they try and control and subordinate it, even with terms used such as “complementary” or “alternative.”
So, be it with conventional practitioners or holistic ones, it really is up to us to do research, to learn, to think critically and to evaluate. That’s the only real way to weed out the ‘snake charmers.’
Could not resist adding one more thought to this post re: raw vegan friend. Several years ago I developed a mystery ailment which made it imposiible for me to digest food. I went to the regular doctor who found nothing. I went to allergists, gastroenterologists, changed my diet and took up yoga, thinking perhaps it was nerves. I went back to the doctor and requested testing for parasites and yeast, both difficult to test for, and both tests came back negative. They had no suggestions, nor drugs that could help me. They told me to take over the counter medications which I had already been doing and which did not help.
I went to the library and found a book called something like ‘Ending the Vicious Cycle’ by Elaine Gottschal (spelling may be off ) which included a diet developed for people with Celiac disease but that was also effective for Crohn’s IBD, IBS, and many other digestive disorders. I got the book, and went on the very strict diet (no sugar or grain) and cured myself.
Here’s the kicker – early on I went back to the gastroenterologist and mentioned this book and he told me he had a patient who was on this diet and had had great success. I could never for the life of me figure out why he would not simply have mentioned this to me in the beginning. It would have prevented months of needless suffering.
This diet was developed by a medical doctor and works based on how the stomach works – when out of balance too many bad bacteria take over – and it’s all a matter of getting bacteria back to the right proportions so that they can all do their jobs.
This opens up a separate can of worms – It appears that in many cases:
a) If the doctor can’t fix it, it’s impossible to fix (can lead to unnecessarily premature euthanasia in animals)
or equally as disturbing:
b) If you paid for a visit, the doctor sometimes feels pressure to “resolve” the issue by prescribing treatments that don’t work – as is seen commonly in the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics.This not only is ineffectiive but contributes to development of drug resistant strains.
I hear that many people are now opting to go to India and Singapore for major medical treatment because it’s cheaper and because they receive a level of care, real, human care, not available here.
Hello everyone,
I am a Homeopath and Herbalist. My Homeopathic Association recently told us about this. I guess I need to send in my letter of complaint, however I am also afraid to. I know of a Homeopath in Toronto the CVO threatened to sue if she continued to work with animals, so worry that they would do the same, I am afraid to write, but probably will anyways.
I learned Homeopathy for people, but have always wanted to work with animals. Now I work with both animals and people. I love seeing the good it does for animals. What I find interesting is that Chiropractors are regulated, Acupuncturists are regilated, Homeopaths are now regulated, Naturopaths are regulated. No Veterinarian could be registered by any of the regulatory bodies for the above modalities unless they did extensive training in the area as well. So how do they figure they have the knowledge to choose who to recommend?
It really angers me because I worked as a Vet Assistant. I wanted to be a Veterinarian and then a Vet Tech when I knew I couldn’t afford Vet school. Now after working in a Vet Clinic, I now know that this is the way I want to work with animals. I don’t want the CVO to take away what I love to do. Help animals.
Jen
Jen, this whole ordeal has me seeing red. I can only imagine how upset you must be to have the CVO threaten to take away your passion and your livelihood. I haven’t heard anything more about this yet, but will post anything I come up with. Please feel free to share what you find. This can’t be allowed to happen!
I guess another way to look at this is that the new regulation would bring some badly needed discipline to your neck of the woods. I happen that it’s unsafe for a human chiropractor, acupuncturist, or homeopath to work on animals, even if your training/experience includes a few weeks specific to animals. To think that the science and applied medicine are interchangeable between humans and other mammals is inane — thus the proposed regulation. That said, the ideal regulation would stipulate that an acupuncturist, chiropractor, homeopath, or nutritionist be certified as an animal specialist after being certified as a veterinarian, as it is in many states with some specialists.
Hi John,
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. I agree that regulation can be helpful in ensuring quality treatment. And I think it is very important that anyone who practices any type of medicine – be it conventional or holistic – needs extensive training and careful supervision until they are well experienced. I also like your idea of being certified as an “animal expert”, presuming that the person has been trained by similar experts in the relevant field.
I disagree, however, that holistic practitioners need to be a doctor of veterinary medicine before they can safely practice on animals. This is like saying that every acupuncturist or massage therapist needs to go to medical school before they can treat humans. In fact, I have serious concerns with DVMs who take weekend workshops in acupuncture or homeopathy, and then treat animals. This is becoming increasingly common and I think is irresponsible and potentially as dangerous as my acupuncturist taking weekend courses in surgery and then hanging a tile on her door, announcing herself “surgeon.”
Every modality takes years of training to do their practice well, and I think each modality should be able to regulate itself. The College of Physicians regulates doctors, the Veterinary College regulates veterinarians, and similarly I believe homeopaths should regulate homeopaths, and acupuncturists should regulate acupuncture, and so on. There are very experienced alternative healers who have worked with animals for years, and they are the ones who should train others of their own modality. My vet knows nothing about Chinese medicine or Hahnemann’s theories, and since these approaches often completely contradict what conventional medicine preaches, I don’t believe it is possible, practical or even desirable to try and practice both at the same time.
Has this gone through? I am new to Ontario.
If this goes through I may have to move again.