Read Excerpts from a Letter from A Concerned Owner
Addressed to the Sponsors of Bill HB5377
I'm very concerned with the modifications to The Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act of 2004 being proposed in HB 5377 and SB 3712. These changes clearly are being suggested out of concern for veterinarians' pocket books rather than the health and welfare of our animals.
First, it should be up to the owner to determine the care needed by his/her animals and who is to provide such care. There's no legislation that dictates who's supposed to provide certain care to humans, so why should legislation dictate who's supposed to provide certain care to our animals?
If I want to go to a chiropractor or a massage therapist, or parents want to take their children there, I/we don't need to go through a medical doctor or have the activity performed under a medical doctor's supervision.
I am the owner of two horses, two dogs, seven cats, and one pig. I use veterinarians when I need to, I use veterinarians and non-veterinarians who provide alternative therapies when I need to, and I do certain things myself. I should be able to decide whose services to use. If every conceivable method of animal care provided by someone other than the animal's owner has to go through a veterinarian, obtaining such care will become even more cost-prohibitive than it already is. I currently trim my own horses' feet and if I can't continue to use my choice of equine massage therapist, or equine chiropractor, or equine dentist, then I guess I'll just have to learn to do these things myself, too, because it'll be the only way I'll be able to continue to provide these services to my animals.
Second, the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine" is way too broad. Here is how the proposed modified definition reads: "[T]o diagnose, prognose, treat, correct, change, alleviate, or prevent animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical, dental, or mental conditions by any method or mode," and then it goes on to include specific activities. Under this definition, what isn't included? It's so broad that it would include services that veterinarians aren't even educated or trained to do.
In addition, it's incongruous that the definition of "complementary, alternative, and integrative therapies" includes "techniques" that "may diverge from veterinary medicine routinely taught in accredited veterinary medical colleges" yet paragraph 3.5 under the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine" includes "complementary, alternative, and integrative therapy." Most veterinarians aren't trained in these alternative therapies, or are not as well-trained or experienced as many of the non-veterinarians who specialize in them, or don't even believe in these therapies, so why veterinarian involvement is attempting to be mandated in every phase of our animal's care is totally inexplicable to me.....................
Finally, in these tough economic times, when animals are being abandoned because people can't afford them, all this legislation will do is to accelerate the rate of pet abandonment and/or reduce the level of care that pet owners can provide, and will put non-veterinarian animal care providers out of a job.
Rather than punish pet owners who try to obtain the best care for their animals, why don't you focus your attention (and the State's already depleted resources) on increasing efforts in the fight against animal abuse, or on offering State-subsidized free spay and neuters for all household pets.
Vote "NO" on HB 5377 and SB 3712.
Very truly yours,
Linda Holzrichter
Elburn, IL resident
