Rolfe
Adult human female
Much discussion among sceptical vets regarding a letter which appeared in Veterinary Times last week.
Background. In the UK vets are bound by a law known as the "cascade" which obliges them to use licensed medicines where available, choosing from a "cascading" list of availability. Read all about it.
A couple of weeks ago the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate wrote to the Veterinary Times criticising a dermatology specialist who had recommended an unapproved treatment for an ear infection in dogs. He basically said as it was unapproved, it was illegal to use it. Fulll stop.
This prompted a letter querying the rationale for this, and also asking where homoeopathic remedies stood in this respect. The reply, though somewhat weasel-worded, was quite clear. You can read it here.
Even better, a vet was actually struck off last week for refusing to obey the cascade after receiving two written warnings. Press release about that. (There was more detail in the report in the Veterinary Record, but that isn't available online.) Basically this guy injected a cat with a worming preparation which is only approved for use in cattle and sheep, despite the availability of dozens of wormers licensed for cats.
Don't be expecting wholesale striking off of homoeopaths. It doesn't work like that. However, Mr. Dean's letter is the first time it has been explicitly stated that homoeopathy is covered by the cascade (there was always the possibility that the content-free nature of the preparations might have been used as a paradoxical get-out, but that seems not to be the case). Now that has been stated it becomes possible to protest about the explicit advertising and promotion of homoeopathy to and by the veterinary profession, such as the advertisements for their courses, the articles they write, their lectures to university students and so on.
I wouldn't die of shock if as individuals they managed to evade the cascade on a technicality, such as not actually administering the stuff to the animals or giving it to the owners, but just telling them what to buy off the shelf in Boots and charging solely for consultation. However, I don't see how any veterinary publication can easily defend a decision to advertise or promote this practice.
This has the potential to get interesting.
Rolfe.
Background. In the UK vets are bound by a law known as the "cascade" which obliges them to use licensed medicines where available, choosing from a "cascading" list of availability. Read all about it.
A couple of weeks ago the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate wrote to the Veterinary Times criticising a dermatology specialist who had recommended an unapproved treatment for an ear infection in dogs. He basically said as it was unapproved, it was illegal to use it. Fulll stop.
This prompted a letter querying the rationale for this, and also asking where homoeopathic remedies stood in this respect. The reply, though somewhat weasel-worded, was quite clear. You can read it here.
And since there are no homoeopathic remedies approved for human use either, QED. It's also made perfectly clear in both letters that use of unapproved medicines (outwith a genuine licensed clinical trial) is illegal.
Even better, a vet was actually struck off last week for refusing to obey the cascade after receiving two written warnings. Press release about that. (There was more detail in the report in the Veterinary Record, but that isn't available online.) Basically this guy injected a cat with a worming preparation which is only approved for use in cattle and sheep, despite the availability of dozens of wormers licensed for cats.
Don't be expecting wholesale striking off of homoeopaths. It doesn't work like that. However, Mr. Dean's letter is the first time it has been explicitly stated that homoeopathy is covered by the cascade (there was always the possibility that the content-free nature of the preparations might have been used as a paradoxical get-out, but that seems not to be the case). Now that has been stated it becomes possible to protest about the explicit advertising and promotion of homoeopathy to and by the veterinary profession, such as the advertisements for their courses, the articles they write, their lectures to university students and so on.
I wouldn't die of shock if as individuals they managed to evade the cascade on a technicality, such as not actually administering the stuff to the animals or giving it to the owners, but just telling them what to buy off the shelf in Boots and charging solely for consultation. However, I don't see how any veterinary publication can easily defend a decision to advertise or promote this practice.
This has the potential to get interesting.
Rolfe.
?
