Wisconsin board drops mandate on informed consent

MADISON, WIS. — The Wisconsin Veterinary Examining Board (WVEB) dumped a proposal to implement an informed-consent law panned by critics as the "most restrictive" version established in the United States.

Informed dissent: The Wisconsin Veterinary Examining Board dropped a proposal to beef up its informed-consent rules after critics lashed into the mandate's feasibility.

The measure, killed during an Oct. 24 hearing, required practitioners to obtained informed consent from clients on "all" viable treatment options and procedures. While regulators in support of implementing that three-letter word believe it will raise the bar in veterinary medicine by mirroring physician requirements, critics view it as unfair. The standard is so burdensome, few practitioners could comply and the distinction would leave veterinarians more vulnerable to lawsuits and complaints, critics contend.

Long on talk, short of consensus. Dr. Wesley Elford questions practicality of informed-consent proposal.

That was the WVMA's assessment, shared in part by Dr. Wesley Elford, WVEB member and large-animal practitioner from Mayville, Wis. "It just doesn't seem feasible for someone working on a farm to advise a client of all the treatment options available for all the cases."

It's about communication between veterinarians and clients, contends WVEB member Dr. Marty Greer. Dr. William Rice (right) supported the new rules and a united board. He got neither.

That's not a legitimate concern, argues Dr. Marty Greer, owner of Lomira Small Animal Clinic in Lomira, Wis. In an interview with DVM Newsmagazine, she says food-animal practitioners should be held to the same standards as their counterparts in small-animal medicine, and both groups could stand to inform clients of all possible treatments and procedures.

The rule merely codified what's already expected from practitioners, Greer says. It would have made failing to obtain informed consent enforceable from the board's perspective, she says.

It's a simple task that takes "15 seconds" in any veterinary practice, she adds.

"(Dr. Elford) has an argument, but it's not a good one," Greer says. "Practitioners want guidance on informed consent, and the public wants the information. I don't think we've addressed the concerns from either perspective. This isn't over."

Mums the word

It is over, though, for Dr. William Rice, who declined to offer an opinion on the decision to DVM Newsmagazine. Speaking from his Milwaukee home, he stressed the need for the board to appear unified in its stance, although Rice admits he favored regulators' attempt to raise the informed-consent standard in veterinary medicine.

"I've got my feelings, and they're fairly strong, but I think it's best for the board to work as a unit," the practitioner says.

Counter

Such conservative feelings might stem from what Leslie Grendahl characterizes as the initiative's "cantankerous nature," reflected in arguments between the board and the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association (WVMA).

The University of Wisconsin's veterinary school joined Grendahl, WVMA executive director, in her criticism, disputing the proposal's perceived attempt to hold veterinarians to "maximum standards."

In addition, the move would have made prosecuting veterinarians easier by instituting the same model incorporated in human medicine standards, Grendahl contends.

"I was clearly put on notice that the board intends to more vigorously prosecute veterinarians," she says. "Do I think this will go away quietly? No. It's received a lot of interest, and I think it will soon be picked up in other states."