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.

I generally support this petition but I have some reservations about how this could become misleading to the public. If a veterinarian is a specialist and wants to hold themselves out to the public as a specialist, I would propose that the Board require the “specialist” to post in the animal hospital or clinic: • What the Board of Veterinary Medicine requires of a veterinarian to be certified as a specialist • What special training, education or experience that the veterinarian has that has allowed them to be certified as a specialist • What tests or certification requirements that the veterinarian has taken and successfully passed or completed that certifies the veterinarian to be a specialist. Certain phrases such as “Board Eligible” could be meaningless. Essentially any licensed veterinarian is board eligible—if they were to complete the education or testing requirements. Having learned the hard way that when a veterinarian tells me that my kitten has to stay overnight “so that they can keep an eye on her” really means we will document before the clinic closes that she is non- responsive and then leave her alone in the dark to die is their definition of “keeping an eye on her”, I am skeptical of the ability of the average veterinarian or the Board of veterinarian medicine to regulate this in a manner that actually protects the pet and the pet’s owner as opposed to protecting the vet and the veterinarian profession. (The note that said she was non-responsive was written at 4:40 in the afternoon and the clinic closed at 5pm and no one called to tell the owner. Especially after telling the owner she was waking up fine at 2:30pm. But this is an appropriate standard of care in the Commonwealth) This needs to be very transparent so that clients are not misled. To protect clients and pets everyone needs to know what a specialist is and how a specialist becomes a specialist. Posting this in the clinic is one way. Another way to be transparent is to require vets to give the same information in a written document to the client when the pet is seen. Medical doctors will have framed copies of their diplomas and certifications on their office walls so that the patient can view them. Respectfully submitted