Re: Confronting "Alternative" Veterinary Medicine
SkeptInq (SkeptInq@aol.com)
Tue, 19 May 1998 09:33:21 EDT
Subj: Confronting "Alternative" Veterinary Medicine
From: aleonis@aleonis.seanet.com (Robert Imrie, DVM)
Bob Imrie, DVM
*************************
Fellow skeptics and science advocates,
Most of you are probably not aware that in 1996 the American Veterinary
Medical Association adopted what it calls the "Guidelines for Alternative
and Complementary Veterinary Medicine."
<http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/Guidelines.htm>
Among other things, this document informs both the AVMA membership
(veterinarians) and the general public that "veterinary acupuncture and
acutherapy are now considered an integral part of veterinary medicine." It
assures us that "sufficient research exists documenting efficacy of
chiropractic in humans...," and that in veterinary medicine, "the assurance
of education in veterinary chiropractic is central to the ability of the
veterinary profession to provide this service." They also inform us that
"clinical and anecdotal evidence exists to indicate that veterinary
homeopathy may be beneficial" and that "...it is imperative that veterinary
homeopathy be practiced only by licensed veterinarians who have been
educated in veterinary homeopathy." Various other "holistic" modalities
are similarly assessed. Though much ado is made of the veterinary "alt
med" practitioner's all-important responsibility to maintain "a valid
veterinarian/client/patient relationship," and to "pursue education in
their proper use," no mention whatever is made of his/her responsibility to
make sure the "therapies" they administer to patients and sell to clients
have been demonstrated scientifically to be safe and effective. In fact,
the word "science" appears exactly nowhere in the document. The Guidelines
have been cited widely in the "alternative" veterinary literature as proof
the AVMA has "recognized" various alt modalities as "valid."
Members of National Council Against Health Fraud’s (NCAHF’s) recently
formed Task Force on Veterinary Pseudoscience object to the "Guidelines" on
several grounds. As consumer advocates, we believe the AVMA, by adopting
them, has committed a "breach of contract" with the public interest. We
believe they've also committed a breach of ethics by promoting the general
employment of alleged therapies without compelling scientific evidence of
either efficacy or safety. As advocates of science- and evidence-based
medicine, we have further grounds for objection. We've therefore composed
a letter to the AVMA citing our objections to the Guidelines, and formally
requesting representation on any committee appointed in the future to
re-assess the them. (The committee recommending the Guidelines back in
1996 advised the Board that they be reviewed within three years. The third
anniversary of their adoption will be mid-June 1999. So far as I'm aware,
no action has yet been taken in this regard.)
Our letter can be found at:
<http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/JAVMAlet.htm>
It's "linked" to our Task Force Website at:
<http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/>
For more information on our parent organization, the NCAHF (affiliated with
CSICOP), see:
<http://www.ncahf.org/>
When I contacted the AVMA several months ago to find out who was
responsible for recommending the Guidelines to the Board in '96, I was
told, in effect, that it wasn't any of my business. Giving me this
information, I was told, would be "a violation of the privacy of the
committee members." Apparently, the AVMA didn't feel they would be
violating the rights or best interests of "rank and file" veterinarians by
convening a "secret committee" to advise the Board on such crucial matters
and announcing the subsequent decisions as a "fait accompli."
A number of Task Force veterinarians will be "endorsing" the letter
prior to submission. (...Unfortunately, it will be a rather small number.
The Task Force was only formed six months ago, and we don't yet have many
members. I'm sorry to report there seem to be many more vets out there
interested in using and selling anecdote-based, unproven therapies than
there are willing to take a stand against such things.)
I'm posting this message here because I see no reason why other
interested health professionals, consumer advocates, science advocates, and
animal lovers shouldn't be invited to add their "endorsements" to our AVMA
letter. Membership in the NCAHF or the Task Force are not a requirement for
"signing on." Frankly, I suspect, for both political and financial reasons,
the AVMA will ignore or dismiss the letter no matter what we do or say. On
the other hand, if they realize that opposition to the Guidelines extends
beyond just a few "malcontent" veterinarians, they might think twice before
sweeping our message under the carpet.
If you want to help out by "signing on," please (1) "cut and paste" a copy
of AVMA letter to an e-mail message, (2) add a one-sentence note to the
effect "I agree with this," (3) give a two or three word description of
yourself (e.g. physician, biochemist, consumer advocate, concerned citizen
or even "animal lover"), (4) indicate your city and state of residence and
then (5) e-mail the message to me at <aleonis@seanet.com>. I will add
your name, e-mail address, etc., to a separate list, along with the words
"electronically signed by:" I’ll attach said list to the letter prior to
submission.
I thank you, the Task Force thanks you, and I'm sure, if they could speak,
our animal patients and pets would thank you too. :-)
Robert Imrie, DVM
coordinator
National Council Against Health Fraud, Task Force on Veterinary
Pseudoscience.
PS. If any of you are animal/pet owners and feel your veterinarian might
be sympathetic to either our letter, or to the Task Force objectives in
general, please don't hesitate to pass this message on to them. Thanks.