College publishes complementary medicines statement

No. We have not banned veterinary homeopathy and neither does our position statement of 3 November 2017 suggest that we have.

What we do state, is that we expect treatments like homeopathy, which are not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles, to be offered alongside, or complementary to, those treatments that are.

Under the RCVS Royal Charter (granted in 1844 and updated in 1967 and 2015), our main purpose is to set, uphold and advance veterinary standards in the interests of the health and welfare of animals and in the wider public interest.

The Charter gives us the power to undertake any activities that we think are necessary or appropriate to help us achieve that purpose.

RCVS Council considered this matter as part of its functions under the RCVS Royal Charter, as noted above. The Council decided to approve the position statement based on scientific principles and in the interests of upholding animal welfare.

No. Animal owners are free to choose homeopathic or other complementary treatments for their animals, however, we believe this should only be on a complementary basis and in discussion with their veterinary surgeon.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, animal owners and keepers are responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure that their animals’ welfare needs are met. One of those basic welfare needs is protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

We consider that this welfare need is best served by the use of treatments underpinned by sound scientific principles, and would recommend that both vets and animal owners have this uppermost in their minds when considering treatment.

It is correct that homeopathy is recognised in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations and by certain EU Directives. However, this does not alter the fact that, in our view, homeopathic and other complementary therapies that are not underpinned by sound scientific principles should be complementary to, and not used instead of, those that are.

‘Conventional’ medicines, ie those that are authorised as licensed veterinary medicines, have gone through clinical trials before receiving marketing authorisation from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). The marketing authorisation covers quality, efficacy, safety characteristics and an assessment of risks vs benefits.

Whilst some homeopathic remedies may be registered with the VMD, they do not undergo the same detailed evaluation process.

This Regulation sets out requirements for the production and labelling of organic products, not the treatment of animals. The Regulation does not seek to determine the appropriate treatment in the event of sickness or injury to an animal.

RCVS Council comprises 24 members elected by the veterinary profession, 14 members appointed by the UK’s seven veterinary schools and four members appointed by the Privy Council. All members are required to publish their Declarations of Interest publicly on the RCVS website, and to declare any new conflicts of interest at the beginning of all Committee and Council meetings.

All Council Members are required to act in accordance with the public service principles set out in the Nolan Committee’s First Report on Standards in Public Life, which include selflessness (acting solely in the public interest), integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Council Members are not elected or appointed to represent any constituency or industry, and all have a responsibility equivalent to trustees for the governance of the College.

No. We asked for the language used in the title and preamble of the Care2 petition to be amended, as we thought it was misleading. We have not banned homeopathic vets from treating animals [title], or decided not to allow animal owners to have the option to treat their animals with homeopathy from homeopathic vets [preamble].

We therefore asked Care2 to ask the petition author if they would amend this language to accurately reflect our position statement, so that it didn’t risk misleading people. We also asked what Care2’s position would be if the petition author refused to correct the misleading title and preamble.