Ah...the AVMA...
I most always stay far far away from this issue because I have mixed feelings pertaining to the organization that tries hard to unite vets. However, I'm a little fired up today and may well offer you a little political post-- especially since Stefani lit that fire under my butt with her comment on my animal terrorist post from 12/30.
I am an AVMA member. The vast majority of vets are members of American Veterinary Medical Association. It is the one body to which all vets try to pledge allegiance, knowing that unity among vets makes us more powerful, more capable of affecting the world around us.
As a large organization, however, it's bound to harbor its fair share of detractors among its ranks. These are people that, like me, send in their membership dues annually without fail--but not without a nagging sense of hypocrisy. We find fault with the organization on many fronts and yet we still contribute--for a variety of reasons:
Without a membership I'm incapable of securing group medical malpractice insurance. (My employers do not allow me to "go bare." Nor would any practice owner that I know of.) Without a membership I might also find myself with no access to an affordable group health insurance policy should my employer fail to provide one for me--or were I to retire before government support is available.
Without a membership, you can also argue I'd have no claim to opine on the animal terrorism bill or any other significant issue from within the AVMA. My voice would be rendered far less credible--even (especially!) were I to decline my renewal in protest.
Why? Because veterinarians outside the AVMA system are few and far between. The percentage of non-member vets is very low compared to that of human doctors outside the AMA, for example. For that reason, non-members are typically frowned upon for their lack of loyalty or misplaced sense of brotherhood or whatever. (AVMA protesters and boycotters are considered radicals.)
As to the nature of my quarrel with the AVMA I will not dwell on specifics in this post. I will instead present a short summary of general principles that affect how I (and other oft-frustrated members) feel about our professional organization's work.
Preamble: I won't hide the fact that I've worked as a lobbyist on behalf of the AVMA (albeit for a short time). Be that as it may, I consequently lay claim to more knowledge on the inner-workings of the organization than most vets. People may disagree with me but at least my opinions are informed. Here goes:
IMO, the AVMA is a backward-looking organization more concerned with protecting our reputations and our bottom lines than in having a real impact on legislation or on major US policy decisions.
The power base in the organization is overwhelmingly white, male, wealthy and Middle American (and I say that in the nicest of ways). Although respectable and capable, they lack the vision and drive to achieve any but the most conservative change in society with respect to animal stewardship.
I believe the AVMA is loathe to work on any but the tamest, most inconsequential forms of animal welfare issues due largely to the diversity in our membership. Our profession is made up of one burgeoning mass of small animal healthcare providers and one dwindling (but powerful) group of old-school, agriculturally inclined veterinarians.
This makes decision-making among even the most efficient, rank-and-file AVMA do-gooders an extremely difficult proposition. How do you organize the workings of an organization with two such disparate cultures? They are not just different cultures, they are opposing cultures, often at loggerheads with one another's goals. It's no wonder very little substantive work comes from their efforts.
Here's an example: foie gras. Q. How do you tell a suburban soccer-mom and vegetarian vet with a penchant for saving cats in her community that the AVMA won't take a solid stand on banning certain kinds of foie gras production? A. Tell her the avian veterinary community is afraid that any inroads into regulation of traditional forms of animal agriculture will eventually strike at the heart of their income stream.
This is what the AVMA has to deal with. One side is always pitted against the other. You'd think the balance of power might have shifted to the small animal group long ago. But the traditional paradigm still holds in the AVMA. We remain balanced at old world order standards based on AVMA constitutional principles that promote geographic and practice-type diversity among our governing representatives.
Most members, non-political as we vets tend to be, are perfectly happy to sit on the sidelines and watch things happen (or not happen, as is more often the case) with respect to real change in how animals are treated. It's a lot easier to focus on how well the organization handles the issues of education, economics and public health. And all of these are worthy issues. But...
How about our Veterinarian's Oath? The first two points to which we vets have to pledge include the protection of animal health and the alleviation of suffering. Public health and scientific advancement are soon to follow, but I see the AVMA leaving the first two topics well alone by comparison.
Why? Because we'll never agree on any policy that makes even one group's livelihood more difficult. Never mind our overarching mission in life. Never mind that our job, all day long, is to promote the rights of our patients to secure healthcare and avoid suffering.
I am by no means a radical animal rights freak. I despise any criminal or violent acts some organizations might use to save animals. Furthermore, I have a hard time with the assertion that animals should not be used by humans for food or for science. My views are pretty tame, really. So it seems shocking to me that the AVMA can't even begin to properly represent even the most moderate among us or promote even the simplest animal welfare agenda items.
I'm even beginning to worry. When is this negligent position on animal welfare going to turn around and bite our profession on the backside? Milquetoast proclamations and lukewarm resolutions in lieu of real action don't make organizations any friends--they leave you exposed to your enemies. Vague pronouncements might keep members placated but those of us who know better might soon be in a position to say: I told you so.
You might well argue that the AVMA and its veterinary constituency have a somewhat dysfunctional marriage. But it's ours...for better or worse.
Add Comment6 Comments
Your situation sounds much like my husband's only instead of having to deal with the AVMA, he has a union that has no concept of what their real job really is other than to occasionally slap somebody on the wrist.
Out of curiousity, what would happen if all of the vets that hold strong believes in what being a vet really means went against the the political tide of all the arrogence that is going on? Other than being labled as an outcast, would you be threatened to lose your benefits for shouting out against what is going on?
My other question that I wouldn't expect you to be able to answer would be if these people are becoming vets but refusing to put up a fight for some of the very species they take off and see every day, what's the point of becoming a vet in the first place? It's not as though being a vet is a glamorous or otherwise. It's alot of hard work that has the ability to wear on a person, especially on those endless euthansia days.
As for the soccer mom, I don't have an answer for that as I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the whole greyhound issue. Living in MA, we have a number of dog tracks around that the state refuses to shut down because the tracks make the state money even though they keep discovering mass graves of dogs that have been pointlessly been put to sleep because they're not winners. Just last week they found such a grave that consisted of 50 dogs on site of one of the tracks.
But here's the kicker. The state continues to leave the tracks open and complain about these mass grave sites, however, if a person operates a greyhound rescue and meets the states rules regarding foster care, ect.. these shelters can apply for a grant to help with funds.
I'm all for helping out any good resuce league, but what the state is doing is disgusting. They continue to keep tracks open, but as a way to smooth things over with greyhound people and others, they are handing over cash as a way to apply a non-verbal gag order? It is not stated what would happen to a greyhound rescue league that spoke out against the state while recieving state funds. I'm almost willing to bet there would be threats of lawsuits and such rescue leagues would be shut down.
It's this kind of stuff that keeps me awake at night. If people are going to fight for animals whether they be wild or domestic, fight for the animals, not political agendas or financial gains. Humans are supposed to be the intelligent voices for animals, however it seems as though some organizations seem to have long forgotten what the whole point was to begin, which you've already said. How sad!
Stacy January 2nd, 2007 07:14:00 PM
"I believe the AVMA is loathe to work on any but the tamest, most inconsequential forms of animal welfare issues due largely to the diversity in our membership. Our profession is made up of one burgeoning mass of small animal healthcare providers and one dwindling (but powerful) group of old-school, agriculturally inclined veterinarians."
Maybe so. Maybe so, but just as an aside here, the two best vets who've ever worked with my dog or whom I've learned to respect completely are large animal vets. One is over 45, the other semi-retired.
Just don't let your disagreements with this dwindling group stop you from realizing that, quite often, many of them have more experience than you, sometimes of things you've never even seen in an animal, and they may know what they're talking about.
What are the issues you disagree with them about anyway? I'm curious.
Gil. January 4th, 2007 04:13:00 PM
Gil: Oh my gosh. Please don't assume I have any specific beef with large animal practitioners. I grew up with and was trained by some of the greatest large animal people imaginable. The issue's more a pro-economics, ag industry-protective stance vs. taking an animal welfare point of view; that of protecting the practitioner more than playing an active role in society. Both are necessary. But in the context of the AVMA one is getting the short end of the stick, IMHO. The recent animal terrorism legislation is a perfect example. If you didn't know the history of the bill and the players involved it might seem like a subtle point. But if you dig deeper it comes down to the above distinctions: protectionism vs. activism. I just happen to favor the latter.
Dr. Patty Khuly January 5th, 2007 05:13:00 PM
"The recent animal terrorism legislation is a perfect example. If you didn't know the history of the bill and the players involved it might seem like a subtle point. But if you dig deeper it comes down to the above distinctions: protectionism vs. activism. I just happen to favor the latter."
That's a tough one. I despise what's done to dogs in the name of science but I also despise PETA so I'm between a rock and a hard place here but I am too tired to get into that one and I figure you're just as glad.
I imagine that the situation in the AVMA is far more complex than all-out protectionists against all-out activists; none of us are ever that simple in our views and there's darned little that is all wrong or all right in this world. There's probably something to be said for both sides. But knowing a little about large organizations and the stagnation that sets in, I get your point. The AVMA doesn't seem to have the spine of a wet noodle on the subject of excessive vaccination despite the research that's been done, yet I think the activists like Bob Rogers are going to win this one and I'm glad they will. It's other things simmering in the activists's heads that make me nervous because I may not always appreciate them. Still, change is a constant and we have to deal with it. <g>
Gil. January 5th, 2007 08:55:00 PM
Nice article, very helpful. Thanks!!
Nike Shoes
Nike Shoes September 17th, 2009 06:29:46 AM
In 1981, ed hardy and his wife formed Hardy Marks Publications. In 2004, Christian Bale licensed the rights to produce the high-end Ed Hardy UK line, which is based on Hardy's imagery. Prior to the ed hardy clothing line, Bale was the Head Designer at Von Dutch Originals, which marketed the imagery of Kenny Howard. Don ed hardy, commented, As demand for my artwork continues to skyrocket, I felt it was ed hardy clothing time to take on a partner that could help me manage the demand and opportunities for the ed hardy T-shirts name. Iconix is at the forefront of brand management and clearly has the capabilities to dramatically grow the Ed Hardy UK business. I'm thrilled to have them as a partner. Cheap Ed Hardy are located in everywhere. We also believe that by owning the brand alongside ed hardy clothing, the founder, there will be opportunities to further leverage his iconic name along with his new artwork. Largest selection of Ed Hardy T-Shirts and Ed Hardy here
ed hardy sale October 24th, 2009 01:01:15 AM
Add Commment