Vet P.O.V. No-health “health certificates” (what no one tells you about pet sale paperwork)

When you buy a puppy you buy a “health certificate” to go with her. Like any literal-minded consumer you assume a certificate with this title means she’s been examined by a veterinarian and has received a stamp of approval in the health department.

Guess again.

Last week I fielded a flurry of emails from my FVMA (Florida Veterinary Medical Association) list-serve. The topic was the widespread professional confusion over OCVIs (Official Certificate of Veterinary Inspection for Intrastate Sale of a Dog or Cat). The OCVI, a form that goes by the common name of “health certificate,” is one of those documents most states demand be completed by a licensed veterinarian before an animal can be sold or carried across state lines.

The point of this document? To ensure animals are vaccinated and free of parasites or other infectious diseases before sale, NOT (contrary to popular opinion, including mine before last week) to certify the animal’s complete health.

(At least that’s how it stands in the great state of Florida, given the confusion that reigns over what these documents actually mean and how OCVIs are to be filled out.)

I wasn’t sure I believed this. After all, it has always seemed to me that the purpose of this form was to ensure that unscrupulous breeders and pet shops couldn’t pass on clearly defective “merchandise.” Even if you could care less about animal health and welfare, it makes sense that a health certificate should certify health at the time the animal is examined—in the interest of consumer protection, at the very least.

The emails on this thread proved otherwise. Indeed, several veterinarians spoke out against the OCVI as a proof of health, referencing the need to avoid legal liability in the event that a purchased pet prove chronically ill or congenitally flawed.

Silly me, I thought that was the point. Since we get paid to sign these documents I figured the financial remuneration was in exchange for our expertise—that is, beyond pushing a few shots, checking for kennel cough and expertly scooping stool from a rectum for analysis.

Wrong!

Confused, I researched this issue. And here’s what I found:

Apparently, the problem of “health certification” and veterinarian resistance to the issue stems from a drive to make vets liable for congenital illnesses that manifest up to a year after purchase when they sign OCVIs.

Example: A pup that was normal when a vet examined him at 8 weeks. Six months later he’s diagnosed with hip dysplasia. And guess what? According to this proposed interpretation of OCVIs the vet is potentially liable for his treatment.

Given the choice between a document that makes me liable for what I CAN attest to and one that requires a crystal ball for the kind of accuracy I’m willing to sign my name to, I guess I’ll elect the former any day of the week. Can’t blame my FVMA colleagues on that score.

But why the either/or? Why can’t I simply be liable for all the problems any reasonable vet should have seen at the time the exam?

Honking heart murmurs, undescended testicles, certain obvious knee and hip diseases…

Don’t these congenital niceties deserve to be included among the “health” issues we need to vet as vets?

I see pet shop pups and other shipped pets with two day-old OCVIs bearing obvious congenital illnesses any third-year vet student could diagnose. Clearly that’s WRONG. Someone needs to be accountable when these conditions are given a pass. But legally, all’s fair and square if a health certificate only deals in infectious diseases. After all, most states also have Pet Lemon Laws making it “easy” to return a defective afflicted animal within a certain period of time. No harm no foul, right?

Wrong again. No animal should be sold without a veterinarian’s stamp of approval within ten days of the sale. And that should mean that the animal appears to be completely healthy at the time of the exam. Any congenital abnormalities should be written on the form. Anything less means no sale. No way.

Responsible breeders wouldn’t dream of doing otherwise. Pet shops, on the other hand, exploit all the angles. They work with vets who know the loopholes as well as they do. They even try to get prospective owners to sign Lemon Law waivers, passing them off easily in the pile of paperwork that attends the point of sale.

As it stands, what you consider a health certificate for that puppy in the window may mean nothing except that said pup was vaccinated, no upper respiratory symptoms were noted and that no parasites were observed on the day the pup was presented to the vet for examination. But if vets are liable for only those meager, easily refutable functions, what does that say about the entire “health certification” process?

As my former ignorance of the law clearly implies, not all vets even know what they’re signing when they complete these forms. But you can bet the ones who work for the pet shops do.

Check your state’s regulations to determine what YOUR health certificates mean. Even if you’ll never purchase a pet in your lifetime, your moral compass should drive you to care about what happens to thousands of animals every day in your state/province/country.

No-health health certificates? They simply ensure that poor quality purveyors of congenitally flawed animal flesh can continue to breed animals irresponsibly, unfairly and cruelly. And that’s gotta change.

September 2nd, 2008

Add Comment12 Comments

(Note: I'm not disagreeing that something is needed so that glaring deficiencies get reported on for puppies destined for retail, but that will be a new thing that is something different entirely. Messing with the current health certificates to add those things would have a whole slew of unintended consequences that have nothing to do with why most of us are transporting our animals across state lines or country borders.)

I'm coming at this from a large animal POV as a person who used to routinely compete in neighboring states. And since I live close to Canada, I know quite a few people who transport animals (horses and dogs) regularly over the border. IOW, I'm no stranger to health certs.

Annnnnd it's pretty common knowledge that a health certificate is nothing more than a piece of paper that certifies that the animal is free of infectious disease and/or has been vaccinated against infectious or zoonotic diseases.

"Health Certificate" is just the name of the document. They had to call it something. Devise a new document that covers the obvious deficiencies that can be seen in puppies intended for sale in retail situations (make sure that internet sales are covered) and call it something else.

Deanna September 2nd, 2008 10:23:00 AM

If I have a horse and wish to sell it to someone else, isn't there a much more detailed exam & form that a vet fills out that attests to the healthiness in regard to more than just whether it's bearing any contagious illness? If large animal vets do this already, surely a means of adapting to the small animal world could be envisaged?

Alex September 2nd, 2008 11:56:00 AM

Per Deanna's post, I agree that maybe the term "health certificate" is outdated, too general. Something else is needed.

I just got involved in animal rescue transport for cats. As a driver, I have the "health certs" for the animals while they are in my car. If we were stopped, we could prove only that the vet in the state of origin gave the cats their shots and certified (I'm assuming here) that they did not carry any infectious diseases, and could therefore travel through state lines. I'm also assuming they are well enough to travel, though one of the cats was pregnant, and we were not told until we picked her up. As a driver, I cannot know much about the animals' history and must trust everyone in the process.

For my part, I wish this were called a "transport health certificate" that was, by definition, a health form stating only that the vet-of-origin deemed the animal well enough to travel according to most state laws, and had any necessary vaccines and pest treatments. As it is, I'm not really sure what these general health certificates are saying, and what if any liability we have for the bigger infirmities your post explains above.

Debby September 2nd, 2008 12:58:00 PM

I briefly did horse work, and the pre-purchase exam is not the same thing as these certs that go with puppies. Generally, the person buying the horse hires the vet for the exam, and how detailed the exam is depends on a lot of factors--how expensive the horse is, what the intended use is, etc. Sometimes there is a written statement saying X, Y and Z was found and sometimes there is not. There is not (or at least there was not when I was practicing, any sort of official paperwork for a pre-purchase exam.

There are USDA "health forms" that are essentially a statement saying the animal does not have evidence of infectious disease at the time of the exam (so if he blows up with Rhino or Strangles 3 days after he arrives at your farm, well....that would be why you are supposed to quarantine him anyway!) and that he has had certain vaccinations. Horses are also supposed to have a current blood test for Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA--the Coggins test) prior to interstate shipment.

It was understood what the form meant with horses--my employer used to mock me when I actually did an exam on horses I was signing paperwork on--he'd do them from the truck. So there is that to contend with on the horse side.

I also used to work for a small animal vet who examined pups for a pet store. I would ding pups for having undescended testicles, ridiculously large open fontanelles, etc...and these pups would STILL be sold, usually with a statement that the pup DID have the issue, but at least for the testicle, this puppy store inferred the issue would self correct, no matter how many times you told them that this did not happen very often.

And yeah, I don't work for either of those people anymore.

drsteggy September 2nd, 2008 03:38:00 PM

You rock, Doc.

Yet another well-written post, governed by a moral compass rather than a wallet. If only your viewpoint was the rule, and not the exception, we may actually see these changes come to pass.

Unfortunately, as usual your comments are not those uttered by the rest of the veterinary world, for the reasons you've already set forth (liability, etc.). A good reason, no doubt, but as I'm sure is obvious, not a good enough one to allow the present system to continue unchecked.

How about calling them Infectious Disease and Parasite Certificates? The word "Health" needs to be dropped asap. Surely one could make a case that by calling it a "Health Certificate" the state of the animal's overall health is at the very least implied...

kim September 2nd, 2008 06:15:00 PM

Ditto Kim, years ago Massachusetts required an exam within 48 hrs. of sale---most brought the pet to their own vet for the check. NH law requires health certificate and no sale prior to 8 wks. of age. And yes, the "health cert" says free of infectious disease, vaccinations and a "blank area" to note abnormalities. I have a Canadian health certificate that mentions free of parasites and infectious disease and 2 more other catagories that I can't decipher the French.

Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire September 2nd, 2008 08:05:00 PM

Unfortunately the real problem is the puppy mill/pet store system itself, not the name of some certificate. Read the "health guarantee" on one of these places some time - suppose the puppy does have a congenital defect or comes down with some awful illness a week after purchase. The new owner can either keep the puppy and spend a lot of money on treatment, getting only a portion of it reimbursed after all, or return the puppy, almost certainly to be euthanized, for a replacement. A third option is to provide a certificate of euthanasia to get a replacement puppy.

If a real prepurchase vet exam were required, what would happen to these ill-bred puppies? The purchasers might be spared some heartache but the puppies, not so much. Would the industry shape up? Maybe but somehow I doubt it and I'm afraid such a system would give even more legitimacy to a cruel industry. At the same time, how does this impact shelters and rescues who cannot know the background or health history of their pets?

Anne September 3rd, 2008 04:58:00 PM

Anne: You're right. It's the system. But [bleeding heart though it sounds] I hate the fact that veterinarians (entrusted with the care and welfare of animals as we should be) can't make a difference in this system by choosing to take responsibility the one part of this industry we should reasonably be able to control. I hate knowing that health certificates signed by vets often come down to a formality. The very thought of it insults me.

Dr. Patty Khuly September 3rd, 2008 06:05:00 PM

Anne, actually what you mentioned probably WOULD have some impact on the puppy mill/pet store industry. You are correct, if the pups were subjected to a real exam prior to sale and all the obvious defects were listed on the document then most of them would either never be sold (and then undoubtedly killed) or would be sold at a significant discount. But I think it would have a ripple effect - if the pet store got burned too many times, they might start demanding healthier pups. The puppy brokers don't want to be stuck with puppies they can't sell to the stores, so would start demanding healthier pups from the suppliers (i.e. the puppy mill). This in turn would cut into the puppy mill's profits since it takes a lot more time and money and effort to produce heathy puppies. And then they'd either take better care of their dogs or go out of business.
In a perfect world, anyway...