AVMA Executive Board Adds Language To Association Policy Calling For "Owner Consent" In Veterinary Medicine
Main Category: VeterinaryArticle Date: 21 Nov 2007 - 4:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions
| Patient / Public: |  |
1 (2 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: |  |
2.33 (3 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 2 posts |
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Executive Board moved to change the language in all AVMA documents, policies and references recommending that all veterinary procedures be done only with full and clear "owner consent."
This new term, "owner consent," replaces the term "informed consent." The language change better conveys that pet owners must be supplied with "sufficient information in a form and manner that enables owners ... to make appropriate decisions when choosing the veterinary care needed for their animals."
"It's very important that the Association clear up any confusion in its policies over the importance of clear and open communication in the relationship between veterinarians and their clients. The previous term 'informed consent' was a problem because it is derived from the "informed consent doctrine" in human medicine, and therefore contains principles not applicable or appropriate for veterinary medicine." said Dr. Rosemary LoGiudice, Director of the Membership and Field Services Division at the AVMA. "The language change does not fundamentally change the meaning of this AVMA policy, recommending that the owners of animals be informed fully and clearly, but the new term 'owner consent' more clearly defines that principle."
The new terminology also reinforces the AVMA's stance on the legal status of animals. An animal's owner, or the owner's authorized agent, should make decisions on and consent to the veterinary care of their animals after their veterinarian has provided sufficient information to do so, Dr. LoGiudice explained.
The AVMA and its more than 75,000 member veterinarians are engaged in a wide variety of activities dedicated to advancing the scince and art of animal, human and public health.
American Veterinary Medical Association
Visit our veterinary section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/89489.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/89489.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (2)
Is This Lip Service Or The True Intent Of Veterinarians?
posted by Nancy on 4 Dec 2008 at 10:46 pmWe recently lost our dog,to what I believe was an adverse reaction to rimadyl. As a practicing pharmacist, I am well aware of the term and intent of "informed consent." The vet did no lab tests on our dog and had no discussion of risk versus benefits regarding drug. (our dog was prescribed this for the pain associated with an indolent eye ulcer). I asked point blank "if it was dangerous" when the vet handed it to me. She flipped her hair and said "there's nothing in the literature." I looked it up in my Plumb's Vet manual and found nothing other than what you'd expect from an NSAID. We've never had cause to distrust a vet before so I gave it to our dog. Two hours after her 10th dose a week later, she was panting heavily and couldn't keep her back legs under her. I called the vet and rushed her in. I carried our usually bouncy, energetic dog to the car and into the vet's. Her blood pressure and temperature were low. The vet did two labs on her about 2-2 1/2 hours apart and called and said "she was destroying her red blood cells." I was also told she was standing in a cage (hard for me to believe) then stopped breathing on her own. She was gone in a few hours. My daughter and I arrived and I asked if it was the rimadyl. There were two different vets on duty. Both said "there's nothing in the literature." I was going to have her cremated then after researching it on the internet. (Pfizer's package insert, the FDA Dear Doctor letter, the summary of the settlement Pfizer reached with 300 dog owners for the deaths of their dogs and numerous individuals reports) I called to have an autopsy and file an FDA adverse reaction report. I received a voice mail saying they had but a hold on her cremation pending the autopsy. The day I called Pfizer then the vet, I was told she must have had some underlying problem (cardiovascular, tumor or bleeding disorder---but no evaluation of those prior to prescribing this "safe drug") then at 5 pm, I received another voice mail from the vet stating "oops, she was already cremated this morning."
I'm not too sure I believe that either. I truly believe that had I continued the benadryl and artifical tears instead of going to the vet, our dog would still be alive.
I would like to think and have thought prior to this experience that veterinarians were trustworthy and put the animals and owners best interest first. It's pathetic that I can better and more truthful information from a google search than a "supposedly professional" veterinarian. I don't believe that Pfizer would have included the Postmarketing Adverse Events or settled a multimillion dollar lawsuit without justifiable cause. Although it appears some of the pharmaceutical companies have tried to limit the investigations into adverse drug events by pressuring the FDA and those FDA veterinarians investigating them, the information is readily available on the internet. Either you believe and are committed to "informed consent" and allow the owner to make their own decision if the benefits outweigh the benefits and remain a "trusted" profession or you continue to allow this of your members and further tarnish the reputation of veterinary medicine. I know several state have enacted laws with monetary fines if informed consent is omitted but it seems if you are a professional, you'd do it as it's the right and moral thing to do.
BE AWARE OF RIMADYL'S KNOWN SIDE-EFFECTS
posted by Jean Townsend on 5 Dec 2008 at 10:15 amI read with much interest Nancy's post regarding what happened to her companion animal. She is definitely not alone and I applaud her for bringing out information that hopefully will catch the attention of veterinarians and dog owners as well.
I lost my beloved chocolate lab, George, to the irrevocable adverse side effects of Rimadyl on Oct. 13, 1997. Since that time I have worked almost daily to try and alert others to the dangers of Rimadyl and similar drugs known as NSAIDS. While I agree all drugs probably have adverse side effects, I believe it to be entirely wrong for veterinarians not to inform their clients completely, withholding nothing, about the adverse effects of any drug that is prescribed.
It should not be the total responsiblity of dog owners to research each and every drug prescribed - the veterinarians take an oath - they should strive to do better.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
