With the recent controversy over the issue of veterinary prescribing ACVMG have been painted as the villains of the piece in the eyes of many in the veterinary fraternity. With all the tunnel vision on this one important issue there is another opportunity that has been let slip by.

ACVMG had a proposal that was probably in the best interests of the profession at large, viz. the banning of companies from advertising PARs directly to the general public. This now looks like being done away with while the prescribing issue continues to be pushed by ACVMG, the difference being the force of lobby groups.

As veterinarians we may sometimes be critical of our own association but we have to realize, as any one promoting a minor sport in NZ can testify to, that lack of action is not necessarily due to a lack of effort but to relative size and economic impact (just think of George Bush’s campaign budget this year!).

A good example of relative lobby size in our own industry can be seen in the fact that vitamin injections for horses are PARs but anthelmintics for production animals are not. This is nonsensical when one considers the relative risks needing to be managed but is indicative of the fact that the farming retail industry is a far more powerful lobby group than the equine one.

This is also very evident in the PAR advertising issue. The status quo looks likely to remain only because of lobby pressure from industry groups.

Whereas NZVA have been working overtime on, what most veterinarians agree is the larger issue that of veterinary prescribing, they and ACVMG have given in rapidly to industry lobbies on PAR advertising. Instead of supporting the original ACVMG intention of having no PAR advertising the thrust is now on allowing advertising but no inducements.

The lobby groups are AGCARM and ARPPA. The former is a large body, which has traditionally looked after the interests of larger companies and multinationals.

ARPPA, of which Ethical Agents Ltd was one of the original members, was set

up to represent the interests of smaller NZ based companies. A few years ago, for reasons of increased revenue, ARPPA amended its constitution to allow multinationals to also be members and there was even consideration to amalgamating the two bodies.

As the body had now lost its original focus Ethical Agents Ltd opted to resign membership because there is no longer a body to represent the smaller NZ based companies.

So what is this issue of PAR advertising? Industry argues that they are able to ‘inform’ the public so that it is easier for veterinarians to change prescribing habits. This really strikes at the core of the profession in that the practitioner should be the one to whom the public goes to for advice on prescription medicines.

In fact part of one submission actually states that industry is better able to inform the public than a practitioner.

This is a rather arrogant attitude that really says that an advertising agency is a better source of information than a qualified veterinarian. Yellow tennis balls tell very little about the side effects of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug but have a powerful effect on product demand.

Any marketer will tell you it is not necessarily the best product that wins the marketing war, or else we

requires them to have knowledge of the difference between benzathine cloxacillin and sodium cloxacillin!

Clearly farming leaders wish DCT to be as readily available as anthelmintics when, in an ideal world, both would be under some sort of risk management process.

Management at Ethical Agents Ltd believe that it is better to provide the information to practitioners, who can then assess it for their own clients, and are opposed to the principle of directly advertising PARs to the general public even though, to be competitive in the marketplace, the company may be forced into it.

Right now it looks as though there was an opportunity to prevent this occurring but, with the line wide open, the ball appears to be slipping through the hands of the profession and the full time whistle is about to blow.

The next logical step will be the lobbying to remove prescription status from DCT so the products are freely available from veterinary traders.

That is certainly feasible under the Act and, if veterinarians supply on demand rather than via a consultative process, almost a certainty to happen. The profession cannot afford to drop the ball a second time!

Inside this issue:

Back to vets page

Home

would all be watching Beta videos instead of VHS (for those who can even remember the video war). This may be fine for the marketing gurus but is not in the best interests of the consumer.

The issue is inextricably linked with the issue of veterinary traders as evidenced in the farming press in the March 2004 issue of the Dairyman. The writer claims that farmers should now be informed of all the options, via advertising, before consulting the vet.

What he means by this is that farmers want to have DCT on demand. He certainly doesn’t mean, for example, that being informed on all the options