Today, AVMA President Ted Cohn, DVM, sent a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star expressing disappointment and concern about a series of articles that AVMA believes impugn veterinarians and call into question their integrity and professionalism. The series of articles was titled “Pets at Risk,” and the last of the series installments was published Sunday. The series implied drug manufacturers have excessive influence on veterinarians.

The content of the letter follows:

“Dear Editor,

Your recent “Pets at risk” series attacks the integrity of veterinary doctors and calls into question their motives. On behalf of the veterinary profession, the American Veterinary Medical Association not only takes exception to these implications, we are offended by them. Veterinarians are, first and foremost, committed to promoting, preserving and protecting the health of our pets. Indeed, we entered into the profession because of a sincere love for the animals we serve. 

The articles are heavy on conjecture and innuendo and short on facts. While you tried to paint a picture of veterinarians being beholden to pharmaceutical companies for monetary gain, you failed to cite even one specific case of impropriety or lack of professionalism. The same can be said for your suggestions that the AVMA annual convention “revealed just one of the many ways corporate money influences pet health care … threatening the objectivity of those prescribing drugs to your dog or cat.” Like every business, veterinarians must make a profit to stay in business, but to suggest that a profit motive would compromise our professional judgment without any supporting evidence is simply irresponsible. As a private practitioner myself, I can assure your readers that such allegations of impropriety are simply not true. Veterinarians have earned the trust and respect of pet owners and deservedly so.

Your series provided a very one-sided perspective on the issue of noneconomic damages, that is, holding veterinarians responsible for emotional damages caused by the loss of a pet. Allowing noneconomic damages could provide a financial windfall for a few pet owners and their lawyers, but they would also raise the cost of veterinary care for all pet owners. We feel that state licensing authorities have ample authority to regulate the rare case of substandard care without making the cost of care unaffordable to many pet owners. As pet owners themselves, veterinarians understand the bond people have with their pets and would not do anything to intentionally jeopardize the health of any pet.

The story on the safety of pet pharmaceuticals focused on the risks but fails to recognize the value of these products in protecting our pets from life-threatening diseases. The reality is that approved veterinary drugs save thousands of pets’ lives while providing them a better quality of life. All human and animal medications have the potential to cause an adverse event; however, the FDA’s scrutiny and tracking, and corporate research processes, are all designed to minimize these risks while providing medications that treat, cure and manage serious illnesses.

Finally, any good piece of investigative journalism should get people thinking and inspire them to take action for positive change. But we feel this series could have the unintended consequence of frightening people away from visiting their veterinarian when we know that regular visits to a veterinarian are essential for their health and long-term well-being. That, sadly, would be a disservice to all of your readers and would most certainly result in putting pets’ health at risk.”

Ted Cohn, DVM, President, AVMA

The letter to the editor was the AVMA’s public response to the Star. In a blog post and email, Dr. Cohn encouraged members to respond as well by visiting the newspaper’s website and Facebook page to share their thoughts about the articles or submit a letter to the editor via the paper’s website.

You may view the AVMA blog post here: