6 comments
I support the upholding of the term "specialist" as a privlidged term that should be limited to those who have obtained board certification. It is important that animal owners be protected and this term only be used appropriately. This will protect animal health, consumer confidence, and uphold the standards of the veterinary profession.
I believe this is an excellent idea to limit the use of the term "veterinary specialist". Not only does it protect consumers but it shows our profession is serious about veterinary medical standards. Also, those that have gone the extra mile in their careers should receive proper acknowledgement for it.
The term specialist should only refer to someone who is board certfied. Any other use fo this term by a veterinarian should be deemed unprofessional conduct.
Leslie Sinn, DVM
It is important to limit the use of the term specialist to individuals trained, examined and certified by specialty organizations recognized by the AVMA. Without this protection, the public cannot discriminate between trained and untrained veterinarians delivering specialized medicine and surgery.
The summary of this petition does not give a complete picture of what has been proposed. The petition also asks that five items be added to the definition of unprofessional conduct. These are:
1. Identify himself/herself to the public as a member of an AVMA-recognized specialty organization or as recognized by the ABVS, if such certification has not been awarded and is not currently maintained.
2. Represent himself/herself as a 'specialist' unless they are certified by an AVMA-recognized specialty organization or as recognized by the ABVS, or other Board-approved organizations
3. Identify himself/herself to the public as "board eligible", "board qualified", or "residency trained".
4. Use the term 'specialist' for an area of practice for which there is no AVMA- or ABVS-recognized certification
5. Claim a specialty for a class of animals in which a Diplomate of the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners (ABVP) lacks specialty designation by the ABVP.
I support the intention of this petition as stated: “The ultimate goal...is to protect the public from misleading advertising and proclamations by veterinarians who are not truly ‘specialists’.” Thus I support adding a definition of “specialist” and I have no problem with items 1, 2, 4, and 5 as unprofessional conduct.
There is often a fine line between protecting the public and protecting the profession, and I believe that item 3 crosses that line. This would disadvantage veterinarians who have training beyond the four year program which did not lead to board certification, to the benefit of both those with no additional training and those who completed the process of board certification.
When I am considering using a new veterinarian, I am quite interested in all training he or she has obtained. I would not consider veterinarians who are residency trained to be the equivalent of board certified specialists, but I would consider them to have qualifications beyond what would be typical of a primary care veterinarian, and I would want that information to be available to me.
In situations where individuals can truthfully present themselves as ‘board eligible’, ‘board qualified’, or ‘residency trained’, they should be permitted to do so.