I feel compelled to write after reading the recent Forum article (JAVMA, Feb 1, 2001, pp 343-346) by Drs. Ramey and Rollin. Their argument is this: complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) is by definition unproven, and the use of unproven therapies is unethical; therefore, a veterinarian who uses unproven treatments is behaving unethically. I found the tenor of the article condescending, but worse, the authors' arguments are frequently inaccurate or tautologous. The authors say that CAVM, in their opinion, is not scientifically validated. This means, then, that practices such as extralabel use of drugs, prescribing corticosteroids and antibiotics for a patient that doesn't appear well, and pin firing in horses must qualify as CAVM. By their standard, much of what we do every day in a conventional veterinary clinic is unethical. In fact, much of standard practice is based on habit, not hard science. The implications of this have been recently exposed, for example, with the debate over yearly vaccinations for pets. This tradition was built on very limited study yet became widely accepted for years.
展开▼
