PENNSYLVANIA Enacts Veterinary Disclosure into PA Code Pennsylvania Code

NOTE: Vaccines are "biologics".

Chapter 31 State Board of Veterinary Medicine Principle

7 (d).....Veterinarians shall practice in accordance with advancements and acceptable and prevailing standards of veterinary medical practice in this Commonwealth related to the pharmacologic properties, indications and contraindications of drugs and biologics.
(e) Veterinarians shall explain the benefits and reasonably anticipated significant potential risks of treatment options to clients.

__________________
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

On 3/6/2011 6:36 AM, Kris L. Christine wrote:
PENNSYLVANIA ENACTS VETERINARY DISCLOSURE INTO PA CODE[/b] 'PENNSYLVANIA
CODE' (HTTP://WWW.PACODE.COM/SECURE/DATA/04...CHAP31TOC.HTML)

NOTE: VACCINES ARE \"BIOLOGICS\".

*CHAPTER 31 STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE PRINCIPLE

7 (d).....Veterinarians shall practice in accordance with advancements
and acceptable and prevailing standards of veterinary medical practice
in this Commonwealth related to the pharmacologic properties,
indications and [b]contraindications of drugs and biologics.*
(e) Veterinarians shall explain the benefits and *reasonably
anticipated significant potential risks of treatment options* to
clients.

The problem with that is the majority veterinarians don't know the
potential risks of vaccines. But it's a start!

Char

Oh, I don't know about that.... risks of vaccines.... I think most of
them know the risks, just choose to believe that they are reletively
insignificant. I've had a number of relaxed social conversations with
vets on the subject. Some have gotten rather testy at the idea of
clients misinterpreting most of what they read or hear from other than
scientific sources.... and from scientific sources they don't know
enough science to be able to interpret clearly. Most just don't like to
be questioned about their decisions. Same problem with MDs. Dentists
seem to be more flexible.

The issue of annual-everything vaccines came to a head here a number of
years ago when the Grand Old Man of the local vet community, who has
retired 3-4 times that I know of, and is a brilliant diagnostician, with
nothing fancier than access to a vet lab and his x-ray machine, sent out
a letter to his clients saying that he was switching to the 3-year
schedule for everything, and if the client didn't like it s/he was free
to switch vets. He also said that he wasn't going to refer everything
under the sun to the specialists or for CT scans.... just the stuff he
knew needed a specialist. You could hear the thuds of about 30-odd vets
in the area dropping their chins on their desks when they heard that.
The vets that were still stubbornly refusing to change suddenly decided
that it was time..... The ones who had already started to think about
changing or were flexible with the client's request got a good chuckle.

Immunity is something that is not easily understood by some docs who had
their basic sciences a few eons ago.... Frankly, as a nurse, I had to
relearn it all starting in 1980 when AIDS hit the scene and we started
to learn more about T cell function, and to be unable to totally depend
on antibodies. Fortunately, I'd had to retake physiology when I went
back to university for a degree, so was ahead of the early 1960s game
when I got my initial nursing education. The changes just since then
have been coming fast and furious, and not always easy to absorb.

Remember, too, that Jean Dodd has not always been as.... um....
tactful.... as to make it simple for her peer group to quickly
comprehend and accept, particularly those who felt that they already
knew as much as they needed to know. That happens when you're a
bloomin' genius, and live in high-drive. That lady will still be going
90 miles an hour, 50 miles ahead of everyone else, with some new
project, when she falls over dead. Change comes hard, and often slowly,
when you're talking about an entire profession.

Jo Wolf
Martinez, Georgia

But if they can be held accountable in a court of law if they failed to give a pet owner disclosure on a medication or vaccination and that animal suffers a significant adverse reaction, I think you'll start to see some swift changes. This legislation will make it easier for pet owners to hold veterinarians liable if they fail to give disclosure.

__________________
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 02:43:17 -0500, (Jo Wolf) wrote:

Oh, I don't know about that.... risks of vaccines.... I think most of
them know the risks, just choose to believe that they are reletively
insignificant.

I agree. To say they aren't aware is pretty much implying that
they're either ignorant or don't read any professional literature, and
I don't think either of those things is true.

I've had a number of relaxed social conversations with
vets on the subject. Some have gotten rather testy at the idea of
clients misinterpreting most of what they read or hear from other than
scientific sources.... and from scientific sources they don't know
enough science to be able to interpret clearly.

And that's bound to be true of a pretty good percentage of their
clients.

Most just don't like to
be questioned about their decisions. Same problem with MDs.

Yep. They would like clients' and patients' participation to be
limited to following their recommendations to improve or maintain the
animals' health.

That said, when I first told my former (now secondary) vet that I had
done quite a bit of research and had decided to follow the recommended
protocol of several (maybe most) veterinary schools with respect to
freqency of core vaccines, I got no argument. That vet has known us
for years and is well aware of what we know and can do ourselves with
our dogs. My current vet worked for my former vet for 10 years before
going out on his own as a mobile vet, so he knows us and our level of
knowledge and experience and he didn't argue either. When I told
these guys I was now feeding the dogs raw, neither of them tried to
talk me out of it or even said anything negative. I think there is a
percentage of vets that still recommend annual vaccinations for
financial reasons, and a percentage that recommend annual vacs because
they know that some/most of their clients will not bring their animals
in annually for exams unless they think the animals have to have
vaccinations.

Thank you for all you do! You are making a difference.

buglady
take out the dog before replying

"Kris L. Christine" wrote in
message ...

PENNSYLVANIA ENACTS VETERINARY DISCLOSURE INTO PA CODE[/b] 'PENNSYLVANIA
CODE' (HTTP://WWW.PACODE.COM/SECURE/DATA/04...CHAP31TOC.HTML)

NOTE: VACCINES ARE \"BIOLOGICS\".

*CHAPTER 31 STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE PRINCIPLE

7 (d).....Veterinarians shall practice in accordance with advancements
and acceptable and prevailing standards of veterinary medical practice
in this Commonwealth related to the pharmacologic properties,
indications and [b]contraindications of drugs and biologics.*
(e) Veterinarians shall explain the benefits and *reasonably
anticipated significant potential risks of treatment options* to
clients.




--
Kris L. Christine

On 3/7/2011 5:56 AM, Kris L. Christine wrote:
Char;383497 Wrote:

The problem with that is the majority veterinarians don't know the
potential risks of vaccines. But it's a start!

Char

But if they can be held accountable in a court of law if they failed to
give a pet owner disclosure on a medication or vaccination and that
animal suffers a significant adverse reaction, I think you'll start to
see some swift changes. This legislation will make it easier for pet
owners to hold veterinarians liable if they fail to give disclosure.

And the problem with that is most times adverse reactions are not
immediate and can't be easily linked to the vaccine such as in
autoimmune diseases. However, as I said, baby steps are fine with me.
Let's deal with those significant adverse reactions and move on from there.