Should SCAM for Animals be Considered Malpractice?

On this blog, we have often discussed the question whether so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) should be used for animals, e.g.:

• Reiki in Companion Animals?
• So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for animals is not evidence-based and borders on animal abuse
• Veterinary homeopathy: why are farmers allowed to use a disproven therapy on defenceless animals?
• SCAM for animals. Part 1: homeopathy
• SCAM for animals. Part 2
• Good news regarding homeopathy for animals: RCVS POSITION ON CAM
• And again: no good evidence that homeopathy works in animals
• Homeopathy works for animals – so it can’t be a placebo!
• HOMEOPATHY, does it really work in animals?
• Report of the French Working Group on Veterinary Homeopathy
• The ‘Austrian ‘Chamber of Veterinarian Medicine’ … and a storm in a homeopathic tea cup
• Homeopaths and bovine mastitis: tenacity or stupidity?

This article sheds more light on the issue. Here is its abstract:

The field of complementary and alternative veterinary medicines (CAVM) is rife with legal and ethical issues. At the heart of these issues lies a tension between the need to safeguard animal welfare and the recognition of the autonomy of pet owners seeking alternative therapies for their animals. Stricter regulations may limit the availability of certain therapies, denying animals access to practices that may have a therapeutic effect, whereas a more lenient regulatory approach may expose animals and their owners to unscrupulous practitioners. Veterinarians are both ethically and legally bound with society by rules of professional conduct to provide the best possible standard of care, considering current scientific knowledge. While individual veterinarians cannot be prevented from prescribing, applying, or referring CAVM, they are required to exercise transparency regarding the scientific evidence of efficacy of CAVM and their risks and side effects, and refrain from referring to these therapies as acts of veterinary medicine. A regulatory framework is needed that acknowledges the heterogenicity of alternative therapies, respects the autonomy of owners, and fulfils the duty to protect the welfare of animals under veterinary care.

The use of SCAM for animals is tricky not least because animals connot consent to it. Therefore, it is particularly importnat the the owner of the animal is responsibly informed anout the SCAM in question. But can vets who earn money through offering this or that SCAM be relied upon to provide evidence-based information? If they did, they would have to tell the animal owner in the vast majority of situations:

• The SCAM I am suggesting is not supported by conclusive evidence of efficaacy.
• The SCAM I am suggesting is not free of adverse effects.
• For the ailment of the animal, there are treatments that are of proven efficacy.

If they did followed these lines, animal owners would refuse the treatment and the vet would lose income. I see no easy solution to this conflict of interest … other than to forbide the treatment of animals with SCAMs that are not evidence-based. But this step would be drastic because it would abolish about 90% of SCAM use in vererinary practice.