|
|
Opinion & Comment: Addressing the issues
Posted by: JimEdwards on Oct 10, 2004 - 04:44 PM
Information
|
The Vet Record COMMENT 9th October 2004
Source:
 In a debate on the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (AHWS) at last week’s BVA Congress, DEFRA’s deputy chief veterinary officer (CVO) expressed disappointment at remarks made by the BVA President the night before. The BVA President had questioned whether Britain was any better prepared or equipped to defend against the next serious animal disease outbreak than it was before the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epizootic, and described the Government’s approach to implementing the AHWS as ‘at the very least complacent, and potentially downright dangerous’ (see p 438 of this issue). This, the deputy CVO said, ignored what had been achieved since 2001, particularly with regard to emergency planning, and the exceptionally hard work that had been put in by everyone involved.
DEFRA may have been disappointed but, be that as it may, the Government needs to recognise the veterinary profession’s concern about the lack of progress with the strategy, to which the profession itself has contributed much, and its frustration at the Government’s apparent inability to acknowledge that there might be a difficulty in implementing it. The problem with the Government’s approach is epitomised by its response to the report from the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRACom) on the availability of vets and veterinary services. The Government itself has said that vets in private practice, with local knowledge, will have a central role in implementing the strategy and, in its report last October, the EFRACom highlighted concerns about the viability of rural practice and the availability of farm animal vets to help see the strategy through (see VR, November 1, 2003, pp 542-544). The problems are particularly acute in remote and periurban areas where it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the necessary farm animal cover. Ensuring that vets are available and can get on to farms would seem fundamental to the operation of the strategy but, responding to the EFRACom’s recommendations earlier this summer, the Government barely seemed to acknowledge the problem, let alone indicate that it might be prepared to do anything about it (see VR, August 7, pp 157-159). Congress debates allow room for hyperbole, but one delegate may not have been far off the mark when he likened the Government’s approach to that of someone watching water drip through the roof, with a view to possible action when the ceiling collapsed.
So badly drafted and ill-thought-out was the Government’s response to the EFRACom’s findings that the BVA has produced a response of its own. This has been posted on the Association’s website (www.bva.co.uk) and, while drawing attention to the inadequacies of the Government’s response, it makes some positive suggestions for taking the strategy forward. Meanwhile, a positive development at last week’s congress was a comment from the deputy CVO that ‘pump-priming’ funds might be available under the AHWS for schemes that could demonstrate sustainability and value for money. There is no shortage of ideas in the veterinary profession for helping to deliver the strategy, particularly with regard to veterinary animal health plans. However, as this journal has argued previously, there is a need to help ‘kick-start’ this process, as well as to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is there. Following on from the deputy CVO’s remarks, there is a need to move forward, and to establish what form the pump-priming will take. A strategy that is practical and sustainable, and genuinely effective in safeguarding animal health and welfare, is the very thing the profession is trying to achieve.
Progress with the AHWS was not the only contentious issue at the congress and there were times in a debate on prescribing when the tension was palpable. One point to emerge from that debate was that, in thinking about this whole issue, it is important to consider prescribing separately from dispensing and supply, and to be clear about who prescribes, what they prescribe and for which species. Also, regarding the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s (VMD’s) recent concept document proposing a new framework for the classification and distribution of medicines (see VR, September 11, pp 313-314, 315), the point was made that what was missing from that document was just as important as what was there, with particular concern being expressed about the absence of the words ‘animals under his care’ (see p 439 of this issue). Diverse views were expressed at the congress, but one thing everyone should agree on is that, with the VMD seeking to tidy up the Medicines Act 1968 plus more than 110 statutory instruments in a way which is compatible with EU and other relevant UK legislation, all in a relatively short time frame, it is vitally important that it gets it right. Reports on this and other debates at the congress will appear in The Veterinary Record over the next few weeks.
Despite some differences of opinion, an encouraging aspect of the congress was the positive way in which the issues were addressed. This was particularly true of the seminar and debate involving recent graduates (see pp 440-442). Above all, the congress served to emphasise the many challenges facing the profession, and the need to work collectively to ensure that these are met.
|
|
|
