By better educating them as to the fraudulent nature of homeopathetic medicine. You cave in on the matter of fake medicine for pets, and you fight back harder on the matter of fake medicine for people.
Stupid people have stupid pets—they both get what they deserve. 
The better question is " Why are you creating this false dilemma?". No one here is stating that position. No one here is advocating for homeopathy for people but not for pets. This thread is solely specific on one vet and her legal ability to treat animals as a licensed veterinarian who opts to use homeopathic care.
Again, I agree, but I think we’re hijacking this OP for a different discussion. And Society it seems caved long ago on the matter of fake medicine for people – or maybe it’s better to say the issue never came up. Medical licensing is a relatively new thing, and bypassing new rules are what charlatans are expert at.
But, on a more serious note, veterinarian credentialing agencies and organizations like the ASPCA, have more pressing concerns to address with regard to animals (like animal cruelty and population control), than to waste time trying to prevent people from feeding non-therapeutic water to their pets.
I believe the likely potential harm to the animal from homeopathy is pretty remote, (i.e. are there really a lot of homeopathic vets out there who advise, or can convince pet owners to not seek legitimate treatment when indicated?). The biggest harm is to the wallet, and not many pets have bank accounts (my guinea pig does, but he earns his keep).
Yeah, pets don’t deserve to be pain because their owner is giving them Arnica 30c to make their boo boo better. Instead, the animal is in pain and some don’t show it outwardly. Pets are allowed to be stupid. They don’t deserve to be treated badly however.
As has been repeated in this thread, it’s more than just the “supplemental care”. The rejection of vaccines is a serious threat to a pet’s health.
Of course, authorities can find more than ONE problem. Police don’t just go after speeders or drug traffickers, do they? So your false dilemma is also false.
Does it matter in this thread since **this is specifically about one vet? **
I can tell you’re trying to be funny. It’s not working. Moreover, because the biggest harm could come from a parvo outbreak with this vet’s clientele which could spread not just to their animals, but to any animals that isn’t of age to be vaccinated yet. Then it could mutate on top of that requiring new vaccine technology. So sorry, your “trying to be cute about guinea pig’s wallet” joke is just annoying here.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I agree, but somehow it happens. How do we tell the world, “Homeopaths can “treat” people, but they’re too dangerous for pets”?
[/QUOTE]
People are responsible for themselves; pets aren’t.
This despite the considerable overlap in intelligence between pets, and humans who go to homeopaths.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a genuine question because I don’t know – would parents who brought their child to a homeopath face prosecution if something bad happens? Perhaps we should treat kids and pets as equals?
It matters, because the vet in question is, as far as I can tell, not practicing illegally. So, no, she’s not going to lose her licence.
I agree the woman is a twat and it would be nice to have her license revoked for the homeoprophylaxis part of her practice. The other stuff she advertises is bunk, but not worthy of license revocation. The page you linked to states: “Homeopathy can supplement the care your pet would get from a vet (or your loved ones would get from a doctor)…” If she were to keep her practice in line with that mission statement, I’d have no concern (get real veterinarian treatment first, including vaccinations, then supplement all you want with homeopathy or any other type of alternative medicine for your pet, or yourself.
The fight should be against homeoprophylaxis in general. Not against one quack vet who idiotically incorporates it into her practice. What she’s practicing does not appear to be illegal, just unethical—so, you’re going to have a tough time getting her license revoked.
Fight the bigger problem, don’t waste time on a lone vet who hasn’t broken any laws. Fight to get homeoprophylaxis made illegal. We may have a shot at doing that. You have no shot in getting homeopathy in general made illegal, so don’t waste your time or money trying to do so.
A search brings up primarily hits for human usage of homeoprophylaxis, leading me to believe it’s a bigger problem with people than with pets. With that in mind and the fact that not getting vaccinated harms more than just the idiot parent (it harms the idiot’s children and the population at large). Concentrate your efforts on getting homeoprophylaxis made illegal for humans, and it will extend to animals consequently.
And, I can tell you’re trying to be logical. It’s not working:
You single out one veterinarian, when homeopathic vets practice all over the country. Hell, they even have their own Academy.
Everyone with a brain knows that homeopathy is bunk, but we also know it’s not illegal. Nor apparently does homeoprophylaxis appear to go against any state medical or veterinarian licensing boards, otherwise these homeopathic clinics would be shut down shortly after they advertise their treatments. So, the question asked in your OP is [del]dumb[/del] easily answerable. *Should this veterinarian lose her license to practice? *No, she should not lose her license because she broke no laws nor breached any medical standards of care to the point of revocation.
You’ve stumbled upon a problem I believe all thinking people should already be aware of: not getting vaccinated is bad—and homeoprophylaxis is one, but not the only type of medical quackery to promote against vaccination. Even the wording used on the vet’s site about homeoprophylaxis is kind of weak about vaccines—they claim to have homeopathic treatments for vaccinated animals, too.
And, you put all of your outrage into homeopathic usage in animals, when the problem is more rampant in human beings. I’m probably a bigger animal lover than you, but if a fire breaks out in my house, I’m going to rescue my kids before I go back for my pets. I think most of us would do the same.
And the logic of animals being more deserving of protection than human being is also flawed, because children are as helpless as animals at the hands of idiot parents. And with regard to homeoprophylaxis, herd immunization is as important to you and your kids, as it is for your pets.
So, all in all—logical fail.
I was going to link to a hundred articles but then I just figured I’d send you the master link.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here: Should we treat kids better, or should we treat pets worse?
Personally, I would prefer a pet to a child, so neither of the above.
Then I have no idea what you’re asking.
Question: Where did I start this thread? Was it started in GQ where a factual question was asked which would have dealt into the specific legality? Or is it in GD where the question extends beyond the legal boundaries? In fact, was there anywhere in the OP that 1)expanded this proposition to other vets 2) to solely legality within the framework of state or national laws?
Yeah. It’s a construct. One way to get a debate on topic and without having to meander into other things like “what about kids?”, “what about other vets?” and “what about Scarecrow’s brain?”. My attempt in this debate is to focus on this one vet. If you want more, please start a separate thread and watch go even further off track. This one? This one is about one vet.
Really, yet here we have a vet who has graduated veterinary school. Surely it’s not a brainless cult of homeopathy. Therein lies part of the problem is when you have a DVM, a person who should be considered to be in a position of knowledge and authority, offering up homeopathic “alternatives”.
So by claiming there is an alternative to rabies vaccines and giving these to patients (which does circumvent the legal necessity of vaccinating rabies for dogs) this isn’t fraud?
325F.69 UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.
Subdivision 1.Fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive practices. The act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, is enjoinable as provided in section 325F.70.
In the past week I’ve posted on SDMB about sewing, about RPGs, about several other things too. I’ve posted on other message boards about the riots in Baltimore, the definitions of marriage vs civil unions and the laws it protects, and about gentrification. It turns out, that I am some magical freaking unicorn as I’m able to opine about more than one thing. But according to you, talking about a specific thing means that any other part of the bigger picture is invalid or not important to the speaker. And I’m the one with the flawed logic?
Please, please, PLEASE show me where I claimed “animals are more deserving of protection that human being (sic)” or retract that flawed statement.
My view-
Any licensed practitioner of medicine, be it for humans or pets, that is using the legitimacy of their license to muddy the waters regarding a certain practice or solution in order to profit from the ignorance of their customer base is committing out-and-out fraud. It should be a violation of the ethical guidelines of any licensing body to knowingly peddle demonstrably ineffective woo for personal enrichment, and thus constitutes ground for the suspension or loss of a license. If this behaviour is not against the ethical guidelines of these organizations, what purpose do they serve?
Ok, so you asked your question rhetorically, in a “if I had my druthers” kind of proposition? Fine, let me amend my answer: The vet should not have her license revoked for reasons of legality or board certification disqualification, because she has not broken any of those tenets. But, she should have it revoked after we pass a law making it illegal to engage in any type of medical quackery, across the board. Sure, I’d like to strap the bitch’s ass up to a dungeon wall and whip her with a cat-o-nine tail, but then I’d be the one sent to the state pen, wouldn’t I?
“In fact, was there anywhere in the OP that 1)expanded this proposition to other vets…”
Well, you should have. She’s one very small piece in a large puzzle.
Fair enough. But, please don’t rain on my next thread, “That damned Nazi who shot at my dad in WWII; don’t you think he should have been sentenced to death at the Nuremburg trials for propagating the War?" IOW: Don’t blame the follower of bad rules, blame the rule maker.
That still doesn’t make making a quick buck off of gullible idiots a crime. We can argue that it should be, but it isn’t, yet.
Ask an assistant US attorney that question, not me. But, my guess is that, unless your dog has Medicare or Medicaid and uses it to pay for his homeopathic visits, the federal government won’t give a damn about medical fraud (trust me; I’m intimately aware of this).
Again, if the state or federal government doesn’t consider homeopathic medicine to be fraud, it aint’t fraud in the eyes of the state or federal government. Be a champ and try to change that, why don’t you?
I did not know that you were a sewer. I also like to sew. And, sometimes I think I’m a unicorn too!
I was not accusing you specifically of loving animals and hating humans…I was alluding to “you” in the general sense of the word (like the Royal use of “we”, only reverse). Others in this thread (Czarcasm, I’m looking suspiciously in your direction :)) and other threads perpetuate the notion that animals need and deserve more protection than people. That’s a good sound-bite, but it’s not true—and I’m confident enough to predict that in real world scenario, the animals first contingent would choose human life over animal life 9 or 10 times out of 10, just like everyone, else. People and children in particular, need protection against stupidity, no less than animals. I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept of “animals first” (e.g. I value the life of a sea cucumber ahead that of my ex-wife), but, usually we should stick together as a species and look out for each other.
Listen stpauler, I’ve got no gripe against you—you seem like an earnest young lad with basically good intentions. It’s just that you’ve become outraged and indignantly righteous over something most of us already know about—medical quacks exist. Homeopathic medicine is one type of medical quackery. It’s not the only type, nor most dangerous type. Quackery has existed for millennia. In a perfect world, quackery, including homeopathy and particularly its homeoprophylactic sub-set would be illegal and quack doctors would not exist. Work to outlaw quackery—that would be a good cause. Just pick your battles wisely. If you want a gold medal for discovering quackery and singling out a quack doctor, fine, let’s pin one on your chest. Meanwhile, the doctor you’ve chosen to mark with a scarlet letter will continue to charge stupid pet owners for worthless treatments. Congrats.
** Should this veterinarian lose her license to practice? **
No.
But any pet owner who entrusts their animal to her care should have their right to have a pet revoked.
No, that’s not abuse. Those are all natural occurring diseases. But it’s stupid (and illegal at least for rabies around here), especially where the disease can spread to humans.