by Sue Tuck Richmond
Last night I posted an article entitled " Just Say Not to (Unapproved) Drugs for Horses." Some might questions why I would post this, but as I have stated before I try to present all views on the blog and not just advocate one position. After thinking about this article overnight, I felt the need to post a response to it. In the legal world we call this playing devil's advocate--presenting or arguing the other side. And, I woke up feeling the need to present the other side of the argument. First, I must state a disclaimer. I am not an expert at all on drugs for horses nor do I pretend to be. However, I feel certain that there are drugs or medicines that must be compounded for the treatment of horses, thus again making compounding essential and necessary in the veterinary world. I will leave it to the readers who are experts about horse medications to tell the readers when the essential and necessary times are. It is true that animals have died from bad compounds. This can be blamed on a lack of enforcement of the rules and regulations, a lack of proper testing, lack of stopping those who cut corners and use substandard powders, don't have sterile rooms, and really don't care whether their preparations are any good or not. Ultimately it is about allowing bad compounders to remain in business and compete against the good compounders, who are following the rules and regulations--who are doing the testing, who do have clean, sterile rooms, who don't cut corners or use substandard powders, who do care and take ever step to make sure their preparations are what they say they are. It is easy for a manufacturer of FDA approved drugs to say "just say no." However, just saying no to unapproved drugs for horses or any animals cannot be the answer as this article suggests.
Last night I posted an article entitled " Just Say Not to (Unapproved) Drugs for Horses." Some might questions why I would post this, but as I have stated before I try to present all views on the blog and not just advocate one position. After thinking about this article overnight, I felt the need to post a response to it. In the legal world we call this playing devil's advocate--presenting or arguing the other side. And, I woke up feeling the need to present the other side of the argument. First, I must state a disclaimer. I am not an expert at all on drugs for horses nor do I pretend to be. However, I feel certain that there are drugs or medicines that must be compounded for the treatment of horses, thus again making compounding essential and necessary in the veterinary world. I will leave it to the readers who are experts about horse medications to tell the readers when the essential and necessary times are. It is true that animals have died from bad compounds. This can be blamed on a lack of enforcement of the rules and regulations, a lack of proper testing, lack of stopping those who cut corners and use substandard powders, don't have sterile rooms, and really don't care whether their preparations are any good or not. Ultimately it is about allowing bad compounders to remain in business and compete against the good compounders, who are following the rules and regulations--who are doing the testing, who do have clean, sterile rooms, who don't cut corners or use substandard powders, who do care and take ever step to make sure their preparations are what they say they are. It is easy for a manufacturer of FDA approved drugs to say "just say no." However, just saying no to unapproved drugs for horses or any animals cannot be the answer as this article suggests.
No comments:
Post a Comment