please, does anyone have a copy of the uk law on treatment of animals they could post here in full or send me a private message please?

[ 13. January 2003, 10:37: Message edited by: Anna Bryant ]

The Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1966, s.19:

19 Restriction of practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no individual shall practise, or hold himself out as practising or as being prepared to practise, veterinary surgery unless he is registered in the register of veterinary surgeons or the supplementary veterinary register, and an individual who acts in contravention of this subsection shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [the prescribed sum]


(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

Section 27 Interpretation

(1) In this Act, except so far as the context otherwise requires,—

"animals” includes birds and reptiles

“veterinary surgery” means the art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, shall be taken to include—

(a) the diagnosis of diseases in, and injuries to, animals including tests performed on animals for diagnostic purposes;

(b) the giving of advice based upon such diagnosis;

(c) the medical or surgical treatment of animals; and

(d) the performance of surgical operations on animals.

thanks jon.

does anyone know if there is any uk case law pertaining to this act in relation to homoeopaths?

if there is no case law, there remains a question as to whether homoeopathic treatment would constitute "veterinary medicine" as no drugs are used.

under such circumstances [no case law] the vets would be calling the bluff of the homoeopaths with their [self-interested] interpretation of the law. so it's important to know if there is a precedent.

I think this law could be interpreted this way (as I know similar laws are interpreted legally in North America)

1. Only veterinarians may diagnose a disease in an animal, and communicate that diagnosis.

"Diagnosis" and "communication of a diagnosis" are legally defined and restricted acts.
Homeopaths can diagnose (i.e. discern a disease condition) using observation, signs and symptoms, and even physical examination tools. But they are legally restricted from communicating that diagnosis to the patient (in this case the humans belonging to the animal). Homeopaths can also refer patients (including animals) to vets or doctors who can perform diagnostic tests and are legally allowed to communicate a diagnosis. That diagnosis can be kept on hand in the patient's files because it is made and communicated by a licensed veterinarian. It may be useful to the case.

Also, homeopaths cannot prescribe based on that communicated diagnosis or medically treat the animal based on that communicated diagnosis--meaning using medical treatments like pharmaceutical drugs and surgery. In North America, this word "medical" is legally viewed as a specific form of treatment--medical = conventional medical drugs, therapy, and surgery. In other words, if I practice homeopathy, I am not practicing medicine. I think this phrase: refers to the specificity of "veterinary medicine". Legal precedence has been set on precisely this definition of medicine in law.

So, in other words, there may be a legitimate legal precedence just like the one that exists here in North America which will allow you to practice homeopathic treatments on animals. I suspect that, just like in North America, this law is on the books to keep people who have not trained in conventional medicine from practicing conventional medicine--not to keep alternative method practitioners from working. After all, you are in England, where Homeopathic practice enjoys legal protection of the sort we can only dream about in pharmaceutical-corporation-controlled North America. In any case, this is where is pays to ask a lawyer for advice, as legal precedence may well exist which protects you from any legal harassment when you work. A lawyer will also be a good person to ask regarding which kinds of malpractice insurance will be necessary to further protect and legitimize your practice, including working with animals.

Good luck on your efforts to expand your work!

[ 15. January 2003, 14:58: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Hello Anna,

You probably already have Christopher Day's web site but just in case...http://www.bahvs.com/index.htm (don't know why this didn't highlight, sorry)

The way I read this is....there is certification for qualified homeopaths who aren't licensed vets. Probably must practice under the umbrella of one, though. I think it would be worth contacting him for information regarding any case law. However, he may be much like the American vet homeopaths and not receptive to lay prescribing (or sharing anything with non vets who haven't taken their courses).

The way the "laws" may be circumvented, is that one is not prescribing "medicine" nor do you actually administer anything yourself...leaving that to the "owner", one of two legally able to administer to animals, the other being the vet surgeon. The homeopath would then be a "health" consultant suggesting over the counter products. It would be the choice of the owner to purchase and administer . The homeopath would not be "diagnosing" disease.

The site http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/veterinary.html states the following regarding the ECCH in the UK...
UNITED KINGDOM
Only vets and animal owners may treat their animals. An increasing number of organic farmers are using homeopathic medicines on their livestock, and the Soil Association, regulating and representing organic farming in the UK, issues a fact sheet on Homeopathy and Organic Farming. Several books have been published on the Homeopathic treatment of animals, both domestic and livestock. A British veterinarian society the British Homeopathic Veterinary Association exists.

-----------------

A number of years ago, Dana Ullman (http://www.homeopathic.com), was involved in a suit regarding the practice of homeopathy by a non medical person....he won.......I'll see if I can find that but wouldn't be the precedent you need for the UK. We have search sites in the US like Westlaw to locate cases and any lawyer in practice should be able to run a quick search for you to find if there has been such a suit brought and the results.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

gpm that link didn't highlight because you typed .....(the dots!) before it with no space between the dots and the link .

Hey! We were posting at the same time.

The legal precedent I was citing was actually set by Dana Ullman's case in California, about 25 years ago. It has had some influence in other states, where practitioners adopted his lawyer's argument to defend themselves, establishing new precedents in each state.

The point is, there are ways to do almost anything, legally! Despite what laws restrict. But you must know exactly what you can do legally in order to be able to do it. It's impossible to research this all by yourself if you are not trained as a lawyer--no access to case law references, or specific, picayune, "minor" details in law which actually change everything. If you pay a lawyer for advice, and you have a good lawyer with skill and expertise in this field of law, you will be doing the necessary research with a professional with access to resources you can't have. It is money well spent.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

thanks everyone.
there is a computer database program that lawyers in england use, and anyone with access to it could see if there is any english case law pertaining to this act.
if there is no english case law established, the case law in other countries might be relevant - though more eu than us.

anyone reading who is a member of an academic institution will probably have access to the program at their law library.
wouldn't it be great if everyone had access to the law at their local library?

gpm, according to an interview given last year, chris day holds that the law forbids that anyone other than a vet or owner prescribe homoeopathic medicines, other than for first aid.
i would like to know if his position has been tested in the courts, as his position is by no means obvious from the wording of the act.
a statement issued by lord soulsby somewhat contradicts chris day's interpretation.

if there is no case law, no one can know for sure how it would go. whether the vets would risk going to court, i do not know... if they were to lose, insurance companies would be able to start insuring homoeopaths in the uk for treating animals - so the vets might not want to risk a court case?

[ 15. January 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: Anna Bryant ]

I think Dana Ullman will provide copies of the transcription of his court case for a small fee.

__________________
Shirley Reischman