 |
|
The
Natural Horse Group was established in 2001.
It aims to provide
information that enables people to explore ways of keeping and managing
equines that enhance wellbeing and encourage a natural lifestyle
|
| |
Comments on the Review of Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966
by the Natural Horse Group
July 2005
The Natural Horse Group (NHG) was founded in 2001. Our aim is to educate people
about horses in order to further equine welfare and wellbeing. We run events and
produce a quarterly magazine covering all aspects of horse-keeping and handling, from
health to training to legislation. Our organisation has input from vets, farriers,
alternative practitioners, scientists, acclaimed trainers and individual owners who
share their experiences and expertise with other members. Our membership is made up
of highly-educated and knowledgeable owners, professionals and other people with an
interest in horse wellbeing.
The NHG would like to comment on the Review both in its capacity as a representative
of horse owners and a representative of people who fall under the heading 'non-veterinarians providing veterinary services'.
We broadly welcome the idea of setting up councils for 'non-veterinarians'. There are
many schools of healthcare practice from which horse-owners can choose. The
council model is appealing, providing that the councils have as much autonomy as
possible in setting standards, approving training and regulating their members. The
NHG values freedom of choice for its members and believes that the proposed council
system would need to protect diversity. We would urge caution in basing any
structuring on 'goodwill and mutual respect' (para 33 of the Review) as such feelings
can dissipate quickly in the face of disagreement.
While many schools of alternative and complementary practice are well-established
and have rigorous, recognised training, practitioners are finding it increasingly difficult
to get insurance. At the same time as some such practices move into the mainstream
and become accepted in conventional medicine (both human and veterinary), there
are other fields of healthcare, which are more recent, or are developing in different
directions. The current situation can inhibit this development and we have members
who would like to train in certain non-veterinary disciplines, but are cautious about
doing so because of fears about the legal position.
In order to find a coherent path through this situation, we do think it essential to
define 'veterinary surgery' more clearly. If the existing definition seeks to delineate
what is, and is not, the sphere of operation of the veterinarian, it cannot
accommodate the diversification of healthcare that is taking place with respect to
alternative and complementary practices. If the definition is to remain unchanged,
there needs to be a mechanism to allow non-veterinarians with specialist expertise to
carry out specified veterinary procedures. The issue of diagnosis is a paradox. An
alternative or complimentary practitioner - particularly in the field of energy medicines
- takes a particular (often holistic) approach to diagnosis and this is part of the
specialisation of the practitioner. A conventional veterinarian is not trained to
diagnose in the same way. It would, therefore, be sensible that the non-veterinarians
coming under the councils are given the right to make a diagnosis within the scope of
their practice. We would like to see the definition of 'veterinary surgery' limited to the
medical and surgical treatment of animals and the performance of surgical operations
on animals, with some of the medical element of veterinary surgery delegated to
appropriate practitioners. At present there is some confusion over this in practice, for
example, it is routine for farmers to inject their livestock, but this is not the case with
horse owners, where vaccination is usually carried out by a vet.
Another advantage of the proposed councils is that they will improve understanding
between veterinarians and other health-care practitioners. At present veterinary
permission has to be gained before an owner can enlist an alternative or complementary practitioner, even when the treatment does not involve the horse
being touched. In some cases a vet has to be present at the treatment. The
existence of councils would hopefully give non-veterinarian practitioners respect and
recognition for the detailed knowledge they hold and the training they have gone
through, so that they could practice independently of vets. It would also mean that
referral by a vet to a non-veterinarian practitioner would be easier, providing
protection for the vet because of the existence of the council. The responsibility for
choosing healthcare practitioners should lie with the owners, in consultation with a
vet, as the owner feels necessary. Issues arising from bad-practice, will be covered
by the forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill
The NHG believes that the case of equine dental technicians (EDTs), provides a model
for other practices. The USA has provided a lead in the training of EDTs, who have
now brought under the British Equine Veterinary Association. The situation that used
to exist in equine dentistry now exists in other healthcare practices where other
countries are ahead of the UK, for example, the practice of natural hoof-care is
advanced in the USA and Bowen therapy in Australia. Again, the need for clarification
of the definition of veterinary surgery arises; for example, natural hoof-care is a
general health matter rather than a veterinary matter, but is not accommodated under
the farriery organisations because it is not concerned with shoeing. Faith-healing may
be done remotely, but at present still requires veterinary approval.
Regarding membership of the RCVS council, we believe that organisations that
represent animal owners should have a right to be lay members and the Natural Horse
Group would certainly be interested in taking part. We also think that maintaining the
level of representation of the veterinary schools is important because they are at the
forefront of research and knowledge about veterinary practice.
Contact:
Abigail Hogg, Natural Horse Group, Stonefold Farm, Ilton, Masham, HG4 4LA
0781 467 1823, abigailhogg@supanet.com |
|
