
Letter to dvm360: Framing the debate surrounding veterinary accreditation
Central issue is conflict of interest inherent in current structure, group asserts.
Lawyer Mark Cushing's
Further, we provided significant “concrete facts or examples of these failings” (AVMA's inconsistency and lack of transparency) in our post
We believe that what really scares Mr. Cushing and his clients is that we want to reform the existing veterinary medical accreditation system-which is at risk of no longer being federally sanctioned due to an inherent conflict of interest in its structure. Similar structural flaws concerned state attorneys general about the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination in the '80s. A professional association should not be involved in a national licensing exam. As a result, the AVMA gradually separated the National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners into a separate agency. This was legally and operationally the proper thing to do. Likewise, a professional association should not be providing accreditation that leads to eligibility for licensure.
The AVMA has another opportunity to do the legally and operationally proper thing. If it cannot work with other stakeholders to accomplish this, the change will be forced upon it. The U.S. Department of Education may do so by dropping the Council on Education as a federally recognized accreditor based on the ample evidence provided in third-party comments and oral testimony. The state attorneys general may become involved again by recommending that their respective jurisdictions rescind inappropriate delegation of authority to an inherently compromised accrediting agency.
We thank Mr. Cushing for giving us opportunity to inform our colleagues of the facts at hand, and we invite him and anyone else who's interested to join the conversation at
Under the Microscope Volunteers:
Newsletter
From exam room tips to practice management insights, get trusted veterinary news delivered straight to your inbox—subscribe to dvm360.





