I'm not a lawyer, politician or vet so I could very well be wrong on my
take of these, but it's worth reading to see what you think and to have
a lawyer here give it a read and tell us what the take is on it.
 
First off, on my reading so far it appears that this may simply be an
AVMA policy guideline for state veterinary boards rather than a proposal
for future legislation, though I could be wrong.
 
>The first AVMA Model Veterinary Practice Act was developed by the
>Judicial Council of the AVMA, in cooperation with Professor N. William
>Hines of the University of Iowa College of Law, in the early 1960s.  The
>AVMA House of Delegates approved this first MVPA in 1964, and since
>then, the MVPA has been revised several times to reflect professional,
>technological, and societal changes.
 
Secondly, it is not possible for this to limit the first amendment.
 
Right now it looks like it is written as a proposed guideline for
what states' veterinary boards should expect in the practises in
their states, as the Compendium of Rabies Prevention and Control is a
guideline for what the states' public health vets should consider for
reasonable practises.   These guidelines exist not to limit others
but to know when to take action against a vet whose work is not
acceptable, or to prosecute those who pretend to be vets or similarly
falsely present themselves and their credentials, harming animals.
 
Note that the  inclusions of acceptable therapies include biologic
agents, therapies, and off-label uses deemed appropriate by a vet.
The others are those which lack proof but it does not appear that a
vet is prevented from trying them, just that there is acceptance of
such approaches which have data behind them.  Misuses such as causing
harm which could have been easily avoided by a vet misusing such
approaches would be as covered by these guidelines as misuses of
standard meds and approaches.  Also, note that they say that "the
AVMA recognizes that clients may seek any of a number of treatment
modalities for their animals".
 
Note that they point out that accreditation is independent of the AVMA.
 
The communication part seems to basically say that veterinarians are
held to standards in their communications and consultations for vets
as they are in on-site practises.  It also notes that a practise does
NOT constitute solely working with a client by electronic means
without examining an animal, i.e. it notes the limitations of
telemedicine which we all know.  Vets on the FHL have discussed this
in past in relation to multiple things but especially when people
have tried to get prescriptions long-distance from vets who have not
seen the animals.  The vets over and over remind folks that such an
approach makes no sense and they simply will not do it.
 
Note on page 7 and 8 many people and things not covered such as vet
students doing projects, those with other areas of expertise "acting
with informed consent from the client", "any owner of an animal and
any of the owner's regular employees caring for and treating the
animals", "any person who, without expectation of compensation,
provides emergency veterinary care in an emergency of disaster
situation", etc.
 
Starting on page 13 are the things that it would go after vets and
false vets for such as fraud, the inability to practise medicine with
skill including from mental or physical disability or drug use, false
advertising, felony convictions, abuse of animals, unlawful sexual
conduct, incompetence, failure to report infectious diseases that are
required to be reported, dishonesty, violations of drug laws, etc.
 
It requires vets to honor a client's privacy in Section 19 and tells when
government officials may require records without client permission.
 
If it actually is an act proposed for legislation rather than a guideline
for veterinary boards, which is how i read it, there is a Clause of
Severability in Section 23 to consider.
 
I would like to see how lawyers here on the FML read this.  Bring up
the PDF at http://www.avma.org/education/mvpa/default.asp because i
do not have the qualifications to know if my interpretations are
correct.
 
[Moderator's note: But what if the lawyers are bound by a similar ABA
policy?  BIG]
[Posted in FML issue 4045]