By JOHN MONK
Staff Writer

MOUNT PLEASANT - Pumpkin the kitten was in grave danger.

A veterinarian had mishandled Pumpkin's spaying and follow-up care. The kitten's internal stitches were loosening, and her intestines were leaking.

Pumpkin's owner, Marcia Rosenberg, got another vet to save her kitten.

Then she filed a complaint with the S.C. Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. Under state law, the board investigates complaints against veterinarians and can take disciplinary action.

Rosenberg thought it an easy case - the evidence was clear, and the second veterinarian was willing to testify. Moreover, the first veterinarian had a documented history of pets dying after mishandled operations.

But with the Veterinary Board - its eight members are seven veterinarians and one layman - things are rarely easy or clear.

"I compare the Vet Board with the Enrons of the world in their lack of openness and unaccountability," said Rosenberg. "Everyone up to President Bush is saying this lack of corporate accountability has to stop, and I'm saying the Vet Board has to stop."

Rosenberg found the board often keeps citizens in the dark, holding secret hearings from which the public is excluded. The board also issues secret reprimands to veterinarians that the public never learns about. Only the most serious disciplinary orders are made public. And the board can take up to a year to act, during which citizens wonder what the agency is doing.

That secrecy shocked Rosenberg, 54, who has had two dozen pets since childhood, beginning with a French poodle named Jolie. She couldn't imagine a government agency charged with protecting pets that moved so slowly.

To Rosenberg, pets and humans have a special, loving relationship.

"I was the kind of child who took milk out to the garage and gave it to stray cats. I was always nursing birds with broken wings," said Rosenberg.

The board's slowness, and its ultimate decision to give Pumpkin's veterinarian what Rosenberg thought was a light penalty, changed her life.

Never an activist, she's now on an almost full-time crusade to open up the workings of the S.C. Veterinary Board to the public and make it tougher on incompetent vets.

In the process, she's accumulated boxes of data on veterinarians and vet laws, and become a pet safety advocate. Since last year, she has made a dozen trips to Columbia, attending Veterinary Board meetings and talking with government officials to push for more openness. She makes the four-hour round trip to Columbia with her husband, Marvin, a retired corporate attorney, whom she praises for his support.

Lawmakers respect her.

"Marcia Rosenberg is the voice for all the folks across South Carolina who feel they didn't receive a high level of care from their vet," said Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston.

Rosenberg's got results. She has:

• Persuaded the Veterinary Board to post its public disciplinary actions on its Internet Web site;

• Picked up support from state lawmakers who will introduce a bill next session to open the Board's discipline process;

• Won respect from the governor's office, including Rita McKinney, the cabinet official who oversees 39 state regulatory boards, including the Veterinary Board.

"I would hope that this and other agencies would always appreciate someone like Marcia Rosenberg," said McKinney.

But Dr. Stan Gorlitsky, the veterinarian whom Rosenberg complained about, calls her one of his "enemies."

Said Gorlitsky, "I have made some enemies. I practice holistic medicine, and some people hate my guts for it, and some don't. Most don't."

This Thursday, the Veterinary Board is slated to take up at least one complaint from another citizen against Gorlitsky, 53. He declined to comment.

Rosenberg's crusade offers a window into how an activist can change the operations of a state agency and how South Carolina treats its pets.

Her story also raises the question: Who is the Veterinary Board protecting - the vets, or the pets?

SLOW RESPONSE

In June 2000, Marcia Rosenberg sought a vet to spay her kitten, Pumpkin. Spaying prevents a female cat from having kittens.

With her love for pets, Rosenberg always has depended on veterinarians and - new to the Mount Pleasant area - was looking for a good one.

Plenty of vets practice in the booming coastal area east of Charleston. Rosenberg had the pick of the litter, so to speak, and settled on Dr. Gorlitsky. He seemed to have good credentials and to be a nice man.

After the spaying, Pumpkin's stomach swelled, then turned red and raw, according to a statement of findings later issued by the S.C. Veterinary Board.

Two days later, Rosenberg took Pumpkin back to Gorlitsky. He sprinkled antibiotic powder on a piece of gauze and wrapped it about Pumpkin's belly with a piece of tape. Come back in three days, he told Rosenberg, according to Rosenberg's complaint to the Veterinary Board.

Worried Gorlitsky had missed something, Rosenberg took Pumpkin that same day to another veterinarian, Dr. David Steele.

Steele determined Pumpkin's internal stitches were loose and her intestines were falling through a hole in her abdomen. He operated on Pumpkin, saving the kitten.

"It was a life-threatening condition," said Steele.

Rosenberg filed a complaint about Gorlitsky with the S.C. Veterinary Board. "I didn't want other animals or pet owners to suffer," she said.

Rosenberg also requested any prior disciplinary data the Board had on Gorlitsky. The S.C. Veterinary Board sent her an 11-page document. Dated Feb. 17, 1989, the record was an order from Ohio's Veterinary Board. It found Gorlitsky committed "gross incompetence" in four pet care cases. The Ohio board ruled Gorlitsky had:

• Torn the rectum of a dog, Truffaut, while getting a routine fecal sample. Truffaut died;

• Failed to give proper care to a cat named Mittens. Mittens died;

• Allowed a cat named Topaz to get an infection during an operation. Topaz died;

• Failed to give a cat named Misty proper care during a spaying operation. Misty died.

Ohio had suspended Gorlitsky's license for a year. In the early 1990s, Gorlitsky moved to South Carolina.

Rosenberg believed Gorlitsky's history would prompt S.C.'s Veterinary Board to move quickly.

She was wrong.

It was 11 months before the board acted.

When the board did act, it did so in a secret hearing where officials denied Rosenberg entrance.

Later, the Veterinary Board issued an order. It found Gorlitsky's treatment of Pumpkin was "not within the appropriate standard of care for a veterinary medical practitioner in South Carolina."

The board ordered Gorlitsky to pay $251 to compensate the board for its investigation. It required him to take 20 hours of instruction in surgery techniques.

Rosenberg was astonished the board hadn't done more.

"I felt like I had been violated twice. Once with Gorlitsky, and again by the board," she said. "Pumpkin was not an isolated incident. It was one more in a chain of events."

Veterinary Board officials, citing confidentiality rules, declined to discuss Gorlitsky's case.

Even before the board's ruling on Pumpkin, in May 2001, Rosenberg had concluded S.C. laws on disciplining vets were lax.

THE SHERIDAN CASE

Two months after Pumpkin's surgery, a Charleston-area veterinarian, Dr. Tom Sheridan, was arrested in August 2000 by the Charleston County Sheriff's Department.

Deputies charged Sheridan with professional misconduct for animal abuse. His employees complained he was losing his temper and harming animals.

But a magistrate threw the charges against Sheridan out, saying state law prevents veterinarians from being charged with animal abuse.

Sheridan is the animal veterinarian consultant for one of Charleston's biggest tourist attractions - the S.C. Aquarium.

Sheridan keeps his post today, even after the S.C. Veterinary Board ruled in June 2001 that Sheridan "engaged in unprofessional and unethical conduct‘ .‘.‘. through his use of excessive force in restraining" a dog. Sheridan also failed to monitor an anesthetized cat and it died, the board ruled.

The board fined Sheridan $500, ordered him to take an anger management course and take 15 hours of anesthesia training. Sheridan also had to pay $4,556 for administrative costs of the Board's investigation.

"That's a slap on the wrist," said Rosenberg of Sheridan's punishment.

An Aquarium spokesman said Sheridan is an enthusiastic and knowledgeable veterinarian.

Sheridan is not left alone with Aquarium animals, the spokesman said. But that's just because since he is a consultant, he must be with a curator when he takes care of animals. Sheridan didn't respond to an interview request.

MORE COMPLAINTS

Sheridan wasn't Rosenberg's only worry.

She kept hearing complaints from Mount Pleasant residents that their pets had died or been hurt while in Gorlitsky's care. Rosenberg urged them to file complaints with the Veterinary Board.

Veterinarian Dr. Steele, who saved Pumpkin, said in the last nine months, a Veterinary Board investigator has contacted him about two cases in addition to Rosenberg's, Steele said.

Steele said veterinary medicine is not perfect, and pets sometimes die after surgery, even with good care.

But he said, "People like Dr. Gorlitsky kind of give veterinarians a bad reputation. So in certain respects, as a veterinary community, we should be more vocal about it rather than being quiet."

THE CRUSADE

Rosenberg wants to return to the relaxed life she had expected to lead at her home in the Mount Pleasant area. It's a peaceful house, overlooking a marsh, and she shares it with three cats and husband Marvin.

Instead, she spends her time researching state laws on the Veterinary Board, collecting documents and networking with pet owners - all to achieve her goal of making the board more open and accountable.

"I don't know how long it will take. But I will achieve justice for pets," she said.

She also talks with officials like Mark Sweatman, an aide to Gov. Jim Hodges.

"She's a bulldog," said Sweatman, who has helped Rosenberg get interviews with Veterinary Board officials to press her case.

Two lawmakers - Reps. Limehouse and John Graham Altman, both Charleston Republicans - said they will file a bill to open up the workings of the Veterinary Board to the public.

Altman said that once the Veterinary Board has determined that charges against a vet are serious, and the vet formally has replied to the charge, the accusation and reply should be made public.

"This is not a bill against the board. I just want daylight," said Altman. "You have more confidence in a system that airs the charges."

McKinney, who oversees the Veterinary Board, would push to make the board more open and increase fines. Currently, the maximum fine for a vet is $500.

"Like any government agency, we work with the laws we're given," McKinney said.

NEW GORLITSKY HEARING

In a brief recent interview at his office, Gorlitsky confirmed the Veterinary Board would take up at least one complaint about him on Thursday.

"The board asked me specifically on their paperwork not to talk about it. ‘.‘.‘. I'm sorry. I wish I could say more."

His case shouldn't be aired in the media, he said. "It's being taken care of by the board, and it's up to them to judge me."

Rosenberg said she won't rest until the Veterinary Board is more open and cracks down on bad vets.

"The board has an ostrich mentality," she said. "They look the other way. The only reason I'm doing all this is because the Vet Board isn't doing their job."

 

Reach Hill at (803) 771-8462 or sehill@thestate.com 

Story last updated at 7:25 a.m. Saturday, July 24, 2004

Jason Hardin covers the city of Charleston. Contact him at 937-5549 or at jhardin@postandcourier.com

To obtain a copy of the entire practice act, visit http://www.scav.com/ and click on "H3889 Proposed Practice Act."

 Posted on Wed, Aug. 04, 2004

Vet’s retirement doesn’t diminish need for reform

Sen. Verdin’s actions were, frankly, outrageous, and all the more so because of his personal connection to the profession. But the larger problem is that the rest of the Legislature allowed his protectionist, anti-consumer attitude to carry the day. While it would have been difficult (though not impossible) for the House to break the impasse, the Senate could easily have passed the new law over his objections. Pet lovers should demand to know why their senator didn’t do that. And they should demand that the legislation be passed next year.

Posted on Sun, Apr. 17, 2005

 

S.C. vets want complaints to be private
Doctors backing bills to gag citizens in animal cases

By JOHN MONK
News Columnist

S.C. veterinarians want to muzzle more than dogs these days. Two bills they support would stop citizens from speaking out about incompetent vets.

Bills making their way through the House and Senate would gag citizens who file complaints against veterinarians who they think are incompetent.

The secrecy provisions in the bills are the opposite of those in a bill that almost passed last year. Last year’s bill would have opened up the now-secretive veterinarian disciplinary process, allowing the public to attend hearings once a complaint was determined to be legitimate.

The proposed gagging of citizens who file complaints might violate free-speech rights, said Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association.

“You shouldn’t have to get permission to speak about a public issue,” Rogers said. He noted the S.C. Supreme Court ruled last year that the State Ethics Commission acted improperly in trying to enforce a confidentiality rule against a newspaper.

John Crangle of Common Cause of South Carolina said the secrecy provision is “self-serving and designed to protect individuals who should be exposed for wrongdoing.”

But veterinarians defend the gagging. They say the proposed disciplinary provisions actually are more open than the current law.

Two nearly identical bills have been introduced, one in the House and one in the Senate. The Senate might take up its bill this week.

The new bills, vets say, would — for the first time — allow a citizen who files a formal complaint against a veterinarian to attend the vet’s disciplinary hearing. However, those hearings would remain closed to the public. Currently, citizens who file complaints are banned from disciplinary hearings, which take place only if a complaint is determined to be legitimate.

Veterinarians, including Dr. Roger Troutman of Rock Hill, say prohibiting a pet owner from talking publicly about a complaint is intended to prevent the airing of frivolous grievances.

“Small-town veterinarians seemed to have the most concern about that,” said Troutman, who last year was president of the S.C. Association of Veterinarians. “Negative publicity” before a hearing can unfairly damage a vet, he said.

But Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, who wants to open veterinary hearings once a complaint is deemed legitimate, said the bills’ secrecy could put pets in danger.

Grooms recalled the bungled operation that came close to killing Pumpkin, a cat owned by Marcia Rosenberg of Mount Pleasant. After her cat was saved by another vet, Rosenberg went on a multiyear crusade resulting in the veterinarian disciplinary board suspending Dr. Stan Gorlitsky. Gorlitsky, who later agreed to retire, had a documented record of maiming cats and dogs in Ohio as well as in South Carolina.

If it hadn’t been for Rosenberg making public dozens of complaints about Gorlitsky and putting pressure on a slow-moving veterinary disciplinary board, Gorlitsky still might be practicing, Grooms said. Under the new bills, someone like Rosenberg would be gagged, he said.

“The vet board’s charge is to protect the public,” Grooms said. “But if the public doesn’t have a right to know what’s going on behind closed doors, how is the public protected?”

Rosenberg, who is working against the secrecy provisions, said, “If something bad happens to your pet, you should have the right to tell your friends and neighbors.”

One lawmaker who helped shape the new vet bill is state Sen. Danny Verdin, R-Laurens.

Last June, a bill that included opening the veterinary discipline process to the public was set to become law. But Verdin, who opposed public discipline, staged a filibuster. Senate rules allowed Verdin — acting as a single senator — to kill the bill.

At the time, Verdin, whose father is a veterinarian, said secrecy serves the public. “The best way to protect the public is to protect the profession.”

Verdin did not return repeated calls last week.

Verdin helped draft this year’s bills, said veterinarians and state Rep. Tom Dantzler, R-Berkeley, the sponsor of the House bill.

Dantzler, a retired vet, said he supported the openness in last year’s bill. Now, however, he supports this year’s bill.

“In my 11 years in the Legislature, I’ve never seen a bill that pleased everyone,” he said. After last year’s bill was killed, veterinarians had to draft a bill that would pass, he said.

Secrecy is only a small part of the bill, he said. Other provisions would:

• Require a new veterinarian to train for two months under a more experienced vet

• Allow forms of alternative medicine to be used on pets, such as acupuncture and physical therapy

• Increase fines on wayward vets to $1,000 from $500

• Add a consumer representative to the vet disciplinary board, now made up of only veterinarians.

Veterinarian Dr. Valerie Alexander of Rock Hill, chairman of the S.C. Board of Veterinary Examiners, supports the new bills. They “provide increased protection for the consumer,” she said.

She said she especially likes the section that lets a complaining pet owner attend the secret disciplinary hearings. “It allows the complainant to hear all the facts and to feel confident that their complaint has been appropriately addressed.”

But Rogers of the Press Association, which includes The State newspaper among its members, said veterinarians might find their reputations in jeopardy if they insist on muzzling citizens who file complaints and then holding secret, closed hearings.

“When people are gagged and proceedings are held in secret, the public has room to doubt that things are done fairly,” Rogers said.

The new bills also include one other change from current law.

In the current law, a mission statement makes it clear the veterinary laws are “to protect the public from being misled by incompetent, unscrupulous” vets. Veterinary laws are “in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of South Carolina.”

All that language is deleted in the proposed bills.

Asked why there is no mission statement in the new bills, Alexander said that, even without those words, “Our mission hasn’t changed.”

 

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005 12:00 AM

Pass open records changes

"The best part of the bill is that it invites the person making the complaint into the hearing so they can see that their issue is being addressed adequately," Alexander says.

10 Things Your Veterinarian Won't Tell You

By Kelly Barron
August 16, 2005

1. "Good thing you love Schatzi like a son. His care could cost as much."
After a New York City taxi struck Jessica Malionek's dog, Mojo, flinging him 30 feet in the air, she spent $4,000 for veterinarians to perform emergency treatment and then life-saving surgeries on her beloved dog. "It was like they were treating a person," Malionek says.

These days veterinary medicine can be every bit as sophisticated as human health care — and the costs reflect it. Animal lovers spent $19 billion on veterinary care in 2001, the most recent figure available, up from $7.2 billion a decade earlier, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. And per-visit costs are skyrocketing: Between 1991 and 2001, the average cost of a veterinary visit for a dog nearly doubled, from $50 to $99. For cats, costs rose even more precipitously, jumping by 107%.

Why the steep price hikes? Chris Green, an attorney and member of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association, says vets are happily obliging owners who want to keep their pets alive at all costs. That means paying up for the latest high-tech procedures, such as feline kidney transplants and CAT scans. There are also more aged pets today, which require more care.

2. "Vaccinating your pet may do more harm than good."
For years the primary reason for seeing a vet was to get your pet vaccinated against a host of diseases ranging from distemper to rabies — either with individual vaccinations or "combo wombo" shots that could cover seven separate conditions.

Indeed, annual vaccinations have been an economic bulwark for many vet practices, but some veterinarians say they're not only unnecessary, but they can actually be harmful in some cases. Marty Goldstein, a veterinarian in South Salem, N.Y., says he sees a range of vaccination-related reactions in animals, everything from cancerous sarcomas to epilepsy. Another reason to think twice about certain vaccines: The immunity provided by some of them can last well beyond a year, even as long as the pet's lifetime, Goldstein says, negating the need for some annual shots.

Both the AVMA and the American Animal Hospital Association now say vaccinations should be assessed yearly and tailored to an animal's age, health and lifestyle. For example, an indoor cat with limited exposure to some diseases may not ever need certain common vaccinations, says W. Jean Dodds, an immunologist and veterinarian with Hemopet in Garden Grove, Calif.

3. "I have more complaints filed against me than a used-car lot — not that you'll ever know about it."
When she picked up her kitten, Pumpkin, from the veterinarian after a routine spaying, Mount Pleasant, S.C., resident Marcia Rosenberg was stunned to find the cat nearly comatose. Soon Pumpkin's body was wracked with seizures, and her stomach swelled. Rosenberg rushed Pumpkin to another vet, who saved the cat, but the distraught owner called her state's veterinary board to complain. Told that the board had no procedure for alerting consumers about disciplinary actions taken against incompetent vets, Rosenberg mounted a successful campaign to have such actions posted on the South Carolina veterinary board's web site.

Tracking complaints against vets often requires a bit of detective work. Some state veterinary boards list disciplinary actions against vets, while others do not. And complaints typically aren't disclosed until a board investigation and judicial ruling have determined a case of wrongdoing. On her own, Rosenberg says she was able to find that the vet had previously had his license suspended in Ohio and since then had more than a dozen complaints against him in South Carolina.

4. "Sure, I can do root canal on your pup — real dentists are for people."
When John James, an academic adviser in Los Angeles, took his geriatric cockapoo, Amber, to his veterinarian for a chipped tooth, the vet told him his dog needed a root canal and that he could take care of it. Amber died during the procedure. James's lawyer later learned the vet's canine dentistry training came from a weekend course. What's more, elderly Amber should never have been a candidate for the intensive procedure.

How do you know whether your pet is in the hands of a skilled specialist? The AVMA lists 20 specialties for veterinarians, ranging from anaesthesiology to dermatology. Legitimate specialists have done graduate work in their specialty and been certified by an industry medical board. Some vets may claim a "special interest" in an area, meaning they've taken some continuing education, but they aren't necessarily certified specialists, says Peter Weinstein, former medical director of Veterinary Pet Insurance in Brea, Calif.

If your pet needs a specialist, check the vet's educational background and certification. Also, ask how many specialized procedures he performs annually. Having a "special interest" may be fine if the vet has enough experience.

5. "Surgery's a cinch. It's the overnight stay you should be worried about."
If you think your pet will be tenderly nurtured through the night after surgery at a veterinary office or hospital, think again. Many vets don't staff their offices overnight, so it's important to ask about what happens in the wee hours.

Laura Ireland Moore, an animal law attorney in Portland, Ore., says she represented a client who took her dog to the vet after stitches from a routine spaying came undone. The veterinarian repaired the stitches with metal sutures but neglected to put a cone over the dog's head to protect the wound during an overnight stay. The office was unattended through the night, and by morning the animal had chewed through the sutures — as well as 15 feet of its own intestines. The agonized dog had to be put down. The moral of this unpleasant story: "You should definitely check if anyone will be on the premises overnight," Moore says.

If the facility doesn't have a night attendant, or if you don't trust his or her credentials — a late-shift babysitter may or may not be a vet or even a vet technician — you should ideally find a facility where a licensed vet stays over, Moore advises. 6. "Personally, I think declawing is inhumane. But, hey, it's your dime."
Animal activists have long held that cosmetic and so-called convenience surgeries, such as declawing a cat or clipping the ears of a Doberman, are unnecessary and cruel. That argument is gaining broader support, as declawing, in particular, has come under fire. While the surgery — which many vets say is the equivalent of toe amputation — will usually keep a cat from scratching the furniture, it may cause other physical and behavioral problems, according to veterinarian Jean Hofve, ranging from lameness and joint stiffness to behavioral issues such as reclusiveness and biting.

In keeping with these concerns, the American Animal Hospital Association now recommends that its members inform clients about the risks of nonvital surgeries and the alternatives. "A lot of vets still feel they should do what the client wants," says Teri Barnato, national director of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. Many vets fear losing clients or having animals abandoned.

If you're considering a cosmetic or convenience procedure, ask your vet if he'd perform the surgery on his own pet. And weigh the alternatives — instead of declawing, you could get a scratching post and keep your cat's claws trimmed.

7. "Go ahead and sue — it'll hurt you more than it hurts me."
When Marc Bluestone's dog Shane died after being treated for seizures at All-Care Animal Referral Center in Fountain Valley, Calif., Bluestone decided to sue. In a precedent-setting ruling, a jury awarded him $39,000 for malpractice, claiming he and his dog had a "special and close relationship." (All-Care is appealing the ruling.)

But that's an exception — suing a veterinarian is at best a dodgy financial undertaking. The reason is that under the law pets are considered property, says Ireland Moore, the animal lawyer in Portland, Ore. More often than not, that means court awards are for the straight market value of the pet, which could be as little as $10 for your beloved mutt. Meanwhile, suing a vet is likely to be an expensive undertaking.

If your pet becomes the victim of a medical mishap, know that your legal recourse is anything but guaranteed. "It's not always the most economically smart thing to do," Moore concedes.

8. "The key to my thriving practice? Location, location, location."
While a referral is probably the best way to select a veterinarian, many people pick one simply because the office is around the corner. Indeed, according to the AVMA, only 10% of cat and dog owners choose their veterinarians through referral. That could be a mistake. If you have an aging kitty and the neighborhood vet doesn't have geriatric expertise, it won't be a good fit, says Nancy Peterson, a registered veterinary technician and a spokesperson for the Humane Society of the United States. Peterson adds that in her experience few pet emergencies happened during office hours anyway, nullifying some of the benefits of geographic convenience.

So how best to assess a vet? First, check out the facility. Is the staff friendly? Is the place clean? Look into the veterinarian's educational background, board certification and record both with the state's medical board and the local humane society. Beyond that, veterinarian Elliot Katz, president and founder of In Defense of Animals in Mill Valley, Calif., recommends studying the veterinarian's body language with animals. Make sure she greets animals in a friendly way, approaching them slowly and touching them gently. And if you have a special request, such as wanting to hold your pet when it's vaccinated, make sure you and your vet are on the same page.

9. "I haven't the foggiest idea why your dog's acting crazy."
The study of animal behavior is a relatively new specialty in veterinary medicine. In fact, the AVMA lists only 36 board-certified animal behavior specialists on its web site, compared with 1,500 internal medicine specialists. Yet many pet owners get rid of their cats and dogs, or even put them to sleep, for annoying behavior ranging from barking to eating drywall. Daniel Aja, a veterinarian in Traverse City, Mich., and president of the American Animal Hospital Association, recalls one client who brought in a St. Bernard to be euthanized because of severe separation anxiety. Once when the owner left the house, the dog jumped through a plate-glass window to chase after him. Aja convinced the owner to treat the pup with antidepressants and had behaviorists on his staff counsel the client on how to work with his dog.

Not all vets will make the extra effort to diagnose a behavioral problem, which entails taking a complete medical and behavioral history and spending hours with a pet. What do you do if Champ continues to chase his tail? Ask your vet if he has experience with behavioral issues. If not, request a referral. The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants' web site¹ lists professionals with varying experience in behavior training, from vets to dog trainers.

10. "Our technology may be state of the art, but our industry regulations are still in the Dark Ages."
While veterinarians and animal hospitals are increasingly working with the same level of sophistication as human doctors and hospitals, the regulatory oversight within the field is far less stringent. Under federal law, human hospitals must be inspected, but it's possible for a veterinary hospital to operate for years and never undergo an independent inspection, Aja says.

The American Animal Hospital Association does accredit animal hospitals, assessing them on more than 900 different standards ranging from organization of medical records to diagnostic capabilities. But only roughly one in seven pet hospitals in the U.S. and Canada have been accredited by the organization. Some states, such as California, perform inspections on vet hospitals, checking them for everything from outdated drugs to unsanitary conditions. Even seemingly petty requirements can have lifesaving results: After a California mandate required vets to have emergency lighting, one veterinarian used a flashlight to finish surgery when a blackout hit.

Links in this article:
¹http://www.iaabc.org
²http://ccare.hearstmags.com/cgi-bin/absplit.cgi?SplitFile=smyhome.urls

 

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2006 12:00 AM

Owner wants vets' mistakes made public

Lawmaker urges open disciplinary process

 

Another bastion of secrecy falls; time to finish job
 

A consumer claims victory in S.C.State-law change allows public earlier access to complaints against veterinarians

Publish date: Nov 1, 2007
By: Krista Schultz

NATIONAL REPORT — Consumers chalked up another victory in the battle of the public's right to know vs. a veterinarian's right to privacy.

A new state law in South Carolina requires complaints against DVMs be made public earlier in the review process.

The change to the state's veterinary practice act opens disciplinary hearings to the public and allows for public disclosure of complaints even before a disciplinary hearing is scheduled.

A majority of states typically have information available once a formal charge is established. Some do not release any notification until the disciplinary hearing is concluded, explains Dale Atkinson, an Evanston, Ill., attorney who serves as general counsel for the American Association of Veterinary State Boards (AAVSB).

The line between protecting a veterinarian's privacy and informing the public of possible negligence appears blurred.

Vilifying veterinarians?

Opinions on the South Carolina action differ.

Some feel that releasing complaint information before it is properly investigated and substantiated by a state board can damage a veterinarian's career and reputation unnecessarily.

"I think the outcomes (of disciplinary hearings) should be made public, but the complaints should be kept private," says Robert Newman, an animal-law attorney in Santa Ana, Calif. "Anyone can make a damaging allegation that is not true and because people tend to believe everything they read, this would be unfair to the veterinarian."

If publicized before wrongdoing is established, the complaint could create the risk "that the reputation of the veterinarian will be damaged when he or she did nothing wrong," Newman says.

"The public is not held to the standard of knowing what is always appropriate or inappropriate in terms of treatment," he continues. Reviewing and investigating complaints before they are released can help prevent unsubstantiated claims from tarnishing a DVM's name.

The fight for transparency

But some consumers have a different perspective — that open disclosure gives information about a veterinarian's entire history in order to make informed choices of doctors.

"My position all along has been the public has a right to know," says Marcia Rosenberg, a Mount Pleasant, S.C., animal advocate and lobbyist who strongly backed the state practice-act change.

"I want a good source of information before I go to anybody and entrust him or her with my physical and mental well-being or that of my animals," she says. "I want to know if a veterinarian has a long complaint history or any complaint history. I feel there should be more disclosure and accountability."

In place of uninformed pet owners will be increased public awareness, Rosenberg contends, recalling her first experience in an open disciplinary hearing — in which formal charges were dismissed — as an example. "Being in the room and hearing the whole situation, I agreed [with the dismissal]. If I had to vote, I would have voted that charges be dismissed. I sat there and said, 'My goodness, why didn't this happen earlier?'" says Rosenberg of the open-hearing format.

Internet vigilantes?

Yet many consumers are not waiting until laws are passed on open information — they are taking action on their own.

South Carolina veterinarian Thomas Sheridan, owner of the Folly Road Animal Hospital in Charleston, knows the power of the Internet all too well after being named in multiple state-board complaints and lawsuits.

DVM NewsMagazine

Proposed amendment aimed at 'a few bad apples'Change in S.C. law would allow veterinarians to face criminal charges for animal abuse

Publish date: Nov 1, 2007
By: Krista Schultz

CHARLESTON, S.C. — An independent consumer-rights advocate is pushing for a change to state law that would allow veterinarians to face criminal charges for animal abuse and mistreatment.

Existing law exempts the practice of veterinary medicine from criminal charges of animal cruelty. But animal advocate and lobbyist Marcia Rosenberg, of Mount Pleasant, S.C., asked her state representative, Ben Hagood, to introduce a proposed amendment limiting the legislation.

"As I looked at the law, I saw there was a blanket exclusion from our state animal-cruelty laws for veterinary practices. It seemed to me, as a matter of policy, that the law was too broad," Hagood says. "So I introduced the legislation that would narrow that exclusion to accepted veterinary practice standards."

 

The amendment, if enacted, could still leave the law too open-ended. "We think there are a lot of unanswered questions about standards of care. It is so broad. We've got to answer those questions before we can come out and oppose or be in favor of it," says Alan Finley, DVM, president of the South Carolina Association of Veterinarians (SCAV). "It's not specific enough in its language."

A needed change?

While current state legislation does not control veterinarians' actions, practicing DVMs are held to the profession's code of conduct, which focuses on acting in the best interest of the animal, while professionally practicing medicine to accepted standards, says Susan Weinstein, JD, member of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association and executive director of the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association.

The proposed amendment brings to light an issue that most states are silent on, she says.

"In general, I would think that the community of veterinarians would say that if something really does rise to the level of cruelty, neglect or abuse perpetrated by a veterinarian, they would not want the mere fact of a veterinary license to stand in the way of that person receiving appropriate consequences," Weinstein says.

Rosenberg contends the law is necessary to ensure veterinarians can be punished for mistreatment. "A veterinarian, if he does truly abuse an animal, should be held accountable. He should not have a license to kill, a license to abuse," she says. "There are just a few bad apples that need to be weeded out."

However, Weinstein is not as confident in the benefit of the amendment.

"Public perception is very important. People need to feel like veterinarians work hard to protect animals and advance their well-being. So if there is this pending legislation, that makes people think this is such a big issue in South Carolina that they have to make a law forcing veterinarians not to do this. It is potentially detrimental," says Weinstein, who also expresses concern that the bill's possible ramifications have not been fully considered.

"The fact that it is a citizen-driven proposal, without widespread support from what I understand, indicates to me that even if it is [Rosenberg's] best effort, it doesn't really make me feel comfortable that it's been thought all the way through. If it passes, I speculate there will be a lot more lawsuits, a lot more pressure on the district attorney's office and a lot more work for animal experts," she says. "There may be a perception that veterinarians need to have a law like this in order to not abuse animals, whereas I think that the overwhelming majority of veterinarians do not abuse animals, and it would be a rare one who did."

Hagood understands the concerns, but still feels the existing language is too open-ended.