Interestingly, the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) has issued a policy statement on the ability of municipalities to pass laws which regulate veterinary activities. 2005’s West Hollywood legislation prohibiting declaws and 2007’s Norfolk City, Virginia’s ban on non-veterinarian cosmetic procedures were perhaps the impetus for such a decree.
Both laws impinged on the state’s ability to govern veterinary activities, indisputably complicating the role of the Board of Veterinary Medicine in these areas.
Historically, states have maintained the right to govern professionals, arguing that individual municipalities have no business adding restrictions which might affect the administration and enforcement of laws governing professionals adversely.
Though municipality restrictions might seem reasonable viewed in the light of one’s personal preferences (banning declaws and non-vet surgeries, as these examples positively prove), consider that enforcement would be minimal and the effects of such legislation a strain on current resources.
Furthermore, the approach to breed specific legislation, among other unwanted laws may benefit from the adherence to a state run veterinary administration policy. Municipalities would have less say in their colloquial restrictions on individuals and would serve to moderate their stance.
Though I would love to see bans on surgical cosmetics performed by non-vets on pets, the AVMA’s policy statement is a welcome one. And while I regard municipalities as likely to lead the charge on welfare issues in general, I prefer not to be subjected to the tyranny of the local majority when it comes to the regulation of my practice standards. I’d much prefer a larger pool of constituent weigh in when it comes to restricting the way I govern myself professionally. As you well know, local governments can be so fickly political.
Kudos to the AVMA for taking up this touchy issue.
Add Comment6 Comments
This is only tangentially related, to the topic, but I'll ask it anyway... Here's a question about breed-specific legislation, specifically in MN. One representative wants to ban five breeds and "any mixes thereof", and has no grandfather provision planned- so, dogs of banned breeds would either have to leave the state or be euthanized. I think euthanizing safe, healthy dogs does nothing to protect public safety and certainly does nothing to protect the dogs who are being euthanized. I feel like participating in the enforcement of this ban would, for me, be a violation of the veterinary oath.
Under what obligations would vets be should this ban pass? I feel like the MN veterinary board hasn't had a voice in this ban at all, despite the fact that vets would be the ones that would have to carry out the euthanasia. I wrote to the rep that if this ban passed, I would graduate from the U of MN college of vet med and immediately leave the state to practice somewhere else... seems like an awful waste of resources. He never wrote back.
Megan January 31st, 2008 10:53:00 AM
I believe the AVMA should lobby hard against this regulation as for any breed bans. Here's where the AVMA should shine, bringing all our medical and political clout to bear on a proposal which has shown no efficacy in reducing dog bites or new aggressive breeds from fluorishing up in their wake. Legislation should aimed at bad people, not at so called, "bad" animals.
Dr. Patty Khuly January 31st, 2008 11:18:00 AM
AVMA has a section for members with material and a sample letter to assist in resisting breed specific legislation. It is under advocacy, state, issues.
emily January 31st, 2008 11:50:00 AM
That phrase "any mixes thereof" serves to underscore the idiocy of the whole thing. If a pitbull has papers his lineage is obvious. But I presume this would be applied mostly to dogs who LOOK pitbull (or other banned breeds). And how do you regulate the lever of looks permissible to avoid death? Who decides if a dog looks maybe half pit? A quarter? Ten percent? Who is going to decide this? It becomes worthless and unenforceable in addition to idiotic.
kate7047 January 31st, 2008 05:56:00 PM
"I believe the AVMA should lobby hard against this regulation as for any breed bans. Here's where the AVMA should shine, bringing all our medical and political clout to bear on a proposal which has shown no efficacy in reducing dog bites or new aggressive breeds from fluorishing up in their wake."
Well I hope they shine at something. I haven't looked for any news of AVMA taking any kind of stance on breed bans, so don't know what they're doing. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they'd tackled the 3 year rabies vax lasts 3 years a long time ago WRT idiotic county or state legislation.
CathyA February 1st, 2008 07:41:00 PM
It's not welcome to me.
Declawing procedures are $$$, and clearly the growing number of municipalities moving toward bans on this procedure and, I presume, similar ones (tail docking, ear tipping) are threatening one nice source of profit.
I see nothing wrong with municipalities passing stricter controls on this type of procedure.
On the one hand, you cite a "strain on current resources" as a reason for supporting this AVMA position. You also cite possible "complicating" of the role of the Vet Boards. On the other hand, you say: "while I regard municipalities as likely to lead the charge on welfare issues in general . . . "
To me, the comfort and ease of the veterinary bureacracy are not bigger priorities than animal welfare.
As for the vet boards, what's a little more complication when they can't do their jobs as it is?
I spent most of one evening this week reading the vet board records from California from 2007. And it left me wondering: How many pets does a vet have to butcher before any action is taken? These accounts were so horrifying that I could scarcely believe some of them.
I wonder if the people of California know about all these vets practising on "REVOKED" licenses? (Because it sems to me that the CA vet board's favorite thing to do is to revoke a vets license but "stay" the revocation, which means its not enforced.)
AVMA, you never disappoint. No matter what nice sounding reason the AVMA gives, the real motive is always far too obvious. I don't know why they bother with the disingenuous rationalizations. They aren't fooling anyone with a brain.
Stefani February 3rd, 2008 02:55:00 AM
Add Commment