• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Legislation Bad For Your Vet

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legislation Bad For Your Vet

    http://www.capwiz.com/avma/issues/al...gMeQs.facebook

    Help Ensure that Veterinarians Can Provide Complete Care to Their Animal Patients

    Veterinarians treat multiple species of animals in a variety of settings.
    Unfortunately, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes it illegal for veterinarians to take and use controlled substances outside of the locations where they are registered, often their clinics or homes.

    This means that it is illegal for veterinarians to carry and use vital medications for pain management, anesthesia and euthanasia on farms, in house calls, in veterinary mobile clinics, or ambulatory response situations.

    Veterinarians must be able to legally carry and use controlled substances for the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, to safeguard public safety and to protect the nation’s food supply.

    We encourage you to contact your members of Congress and urge them to support the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 (H.R. 1528), which would amend the CSA that currently prohibits veterinarians from transporting controlled substances to treat their animal patients outside of their registered locations.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which enforces the law, has informed organized veterinary medicine that without a statutory change, veterinarians are in violation of the CSA and cannot legally provide complete veterinary care.

    The DEA has already notified some veterinarians in California and Washington State that they are in violation of this law.

    The practice of veterinary medicine requires veterinarians to be able to treat their animal patients in a variety of settings, such as in:

    •rural areas - for the care of large animals where it is often not feasible, practical or possible for owners to bring livestock (i.e., cows, pigs, horses, sheep, and goats) into a veterinary hospital or clinic;

    • “house call” services or mobile clinics - where veterinarians offer a variety of veterinary services for their patients or in the communities;

    •research and disease control activities - where it may be necessary to conduct research away from the veterinarian’s principal place of business;

    •emergency response situations – where injured animals must be cared for onsite; and

    •the removal or transfer of dangerous wildlife (e.g. bears, cougars) or to rescue trapped wildlife (e.g. deer trapped in a fence).

    Tell Congress that veterinarians need to legally be able to transport controlled substances to the locations of the animal patients, not only for the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, but for public safety.
    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

  • #2
    I am glad to see this posted here as I was going to. The word needs to get out on this and we need to put a stop to it. I'm surprised that mobile vet trucks aren't considered their clinic. This impacts horse, cattle, any type of livestock vet as well as those of us that want to have our small animals put to sleep at home. We simply can't be hauling all these animals into a brick and mortar building to have them euthanized and then haul them somewhere else for disposal.

    Comment

    • Original Poster

      #3
      There are quite a few vets in our area that don't even have a "clinic". Their "office" is mobile - literally.

      There was one equine vet years and years ago, who showed up in an actual ambulance he had converted to carry every piece of equipment he could fit in that he may need to treat horses.
      And a refrigerator to keep the meds cool.
      ************************
      \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

      Comment


      • #4
        Sounds like as more and more vets are sent to school as 'select' HSUS vets, there may be a problem with them putting their hands in the old cookie jar! What else could explain this?

        Comment


        • #5
          We only have one large animal vet in town w/a clinic all the rest are mobile.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 7arabians View Post
            Sounds like as more and more vets are sent to school as 'select' HSUS vets, there may be a problem with them putting their hands in the old cookie jar! What else could explain this?
            My understanding is that issues on the human side lead to tightening of regulations which created the issue of ordinary parts of mobile practice being a violation. The new legislation is to fix that.

            Comment

            • Original Poster

              #7
              They need to fix this.
              This is stupid.

              Just imagine the vets at the race track.
              ************************
              \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

              Comment


              • #8
                It needs to be fixed. I can't imagine having a horse with a fracture who needs to be euthanized and being told that the DEA required that the vet could only euthanize at the clinic. Shooting a horse in that circumstance is also illegal as we live in suburbia.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sent, and shared!
                  Leap, and the net will appear

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    More over reach in the war against drugs. Kentucky has passed some really bad legislation...emergency room doctors were supposed to check a drug data base before giving a controlled substance to a badly injured patient, for instance.

                    So, how has the war on drugs and more control of prescription pain killers affected Kentucky? Heroin use has skyrocketed and people with a legitimate need for narcotic pain medication are having a really rough time. Good job Kentucky.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 7arabians View Post
                      Sounds like as more and more vets are sent to school as 'select' HSUS vets, there may be a problem with them putting their hands in the old cookie jar! What else could explain this?
                      What in blue blazes is the above drivel supposed to mean?

                      The situation is as follows: DEA licenses for controlled substances are issued for practice at a given address. They do not have any provisions for ambulatory practice. So, technically, any transportation and use of these drugs other than at the specified address is against regulations.

                      This legislation is an attempt to remedy that situation.

                      It has bugger all to do with your paranoid fantasies about any AR takeover of the profession.
                      "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                      ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I read the section of the Controlled Substances Act and I cannot see what they are complaining about.

                        (b) Authorized activities
                        Persons registered by the Attorney General under this subchapter to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances or list I chemicals are authorized to possess, manufacture, distribute, or dispense such substances or chemicals (including any such activity in the conduct of research) to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.


                        (e) Separate registration
                        A separate registration shall be required at each principal place of business or professional practice where the applicant manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled substances or list I chemicals.

                        I cannot see how it prohibits veterinarians from carrying drugs, or storing them at a secondary place of business.
                        ... _. ._ .._. .._

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I recently picked up a total of 1 cc of pain meds for my cat that was divided into ten 0.1 ml cat-sized doses. We of course had to fill out all the controlled substances paperwork.

                          I understand the rationale but I'm still ROTFL about the idea of going from vet to vet, accumulating narcotics one cc at a time.
                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
                            I read the section of the Controlled Substances Act and I cannot see what they are complaining about.

                            (b) Authorized activities
                            Persons registered by the Attorney General under this subchapter to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances or list I chemicals are authorized to possess, manufacture, distribute, or dispense such substances or chemicals (including any such activity in the conduct of research) to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.


                            (e) Separate registration
                            A separate registration shall be required at each principal place of business or professional practice where the applicant manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled substances or list I chemicals.

                            I cannot see how it prohibits veterinarians from carrying drugs, or storing them at a secondary place of business.
                            I think it can be read to mean that if I drive to your house and dispense a controlled drug without that separate registration, that I could be in violation.

                            In any case, I think clarity that a licensed medical professional (human or veterinary) is permitted to have a mobile practice and dispense drugs appropriately and otherwise within the law is a good thing.
                            If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks for posting that, luvmytbs. I'll be sure to share it and contact my reps.
                              Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                              Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                              -Rudyard Kipling

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                                I recently picked up a total of 1 cc of pain meds for my cat that was divided into ten 0.1 ml cat-sized doses. We of course had to fill out all the controlled substances paperwork.

                                I understand the rationale but I'm still ROTFL about the idea of going from vet to vet, accumulating narcotics one cc at a time.

                                But you are an exception;
                                • (c) Exceptions

                                The following persons shall not be required to register and may lawfully possess any controlled substance or list I chemical under this subchapter:
                                • (1) An agent or employee of any registered manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser of any controlled substance or list I chemical if such agent or employee is acting in the usual course of his business or employment.
                                • (2) A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee thereof, whose possession of the controlled substance or list I chemical is in the usual course of his business or employment.
                                • (3) An ultimate user who possesses such substance for a purpose specified in section 802(25) (FOOTNOTE 1) of this title.
                                  (FOOTNOTE 1) Section 802(25) of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), was redesignated section 802(26) of this title by Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 507(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2071, and was further redesignated section 802(27) of this title by Pub. L. 99-570, title I, Sec. 1003(b)(2), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-6.

                                  Section 802
                                • (27) The term ''ultimate user'' means a person who has lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal owned by him or by a member of his household.
                                ... _. ._ .._. .._

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  AVMA April 12th 2012

                                  We’ve previously posted information on this blog and on our online discussion boards after we heard concerns from members that a California district office of the DEA might be changing its enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Although at this time the situation appears to be limited to California, it is a symptom of an underlying, national-level problem: the CSA was not written with veterinarians and their unique circumstances in mind, and therefore does not address veterinarians’ frequent needs to transport controlled substances on house calls or farm calls. Although we’ve been assured by the national DEA office that they are understanding of veterinarians’ needs and they acknowledge the shortcomings of the CSA regarding our profession, we’re concerned that any change in this position could bring many veterinary practices to a standstill and prevent veterinarians from providing quality veterinary health care to their patients.
                                  ... _. ._ .._. .._

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
                                    I read the section of the Controlled Substances Act and I cannot see what they are complaining about.

                                    (b) Authorized activities
                                    Persons registered by the Attorney General under this subchapter to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances or list I chemicals are authorized to possess, manufacture, distribute, or dispense such substances or chemicals (including any such activity in the conduct of research) to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.


                                    (e) Separate registration
                                    A separate registration shall be required at each principal place of business or professional practice where the applicant manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled substances or list I chemicals.

                                    I cannot see how it prohibits veterinarians from carrying drugs, or storing them at a secondary place of business.
                                    Each "secondary place of business" would need to be registered with the DEA. In other words, every.single.farm. an ambulatory DVM visits. With, I assume, a separate registration fee for each.

                                    It is the DEA itself which has interpreted the current regulations to mean that transportation of controlled substances in the course of ambulatory work is no allowed.
                                    "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                                    ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Thank you, OP. Saw this on FB over the weekend, and wanted to remember to respond.

                                      7arabians, it's a wonder you can hear anything else but the voices in your head.
                                      I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                                      I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Ghazzu View Post
                                        Each "secondary place of business" would need to be registered with the DEA. In other words, every.single.farm. an ambulatory DVM visits. With, I assume, a separate registration fee for each.

                                        It is the DEA itself which has interpreted the current regulations to mean that transportation of controlled substances in the course of ambulatory work is no allowed.
                                        Exactly. It's that "dispenses" under (e) that's the kicker. I'm all for controlling narcotics (and honestly having received opioids in the hospital ONCE, after which I stopped telling the nurses if I hurt, anyone who takes them for fun is a moron who deserves what they get-they're NOT FUN) but the way that law got written it means technically a vet would have to register every location where they dispense those drugs. For a large-animal vet, who generally goes to the clients instead of the other way around, that could be a serious problem.
                                        Author Page
                                        Like Omens In the Night on Facebook
                                        Steampunk Sweethearts

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X