Action against animal massage therapist is hypocritical

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Action against animal massage therapist is hypocritical

E-mail this article \ Print this article

I read with interest the article on the animal massage therapist who is suing the Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and the state Board of Chiropractic and Massage Therapy Examiners (‘‘Massaging animals? Therein lies the rub,” July 2 article).

I filed a complaint with the veterinary board in 2005, after my cat received a massive insulin overdose at a local clinic. The person who administered the medication used the wrong syringe, and was unlicensed and unsupervised. While the vet board fined the hospital owner only $250, the board’s executive director told me that they had no jurisdiction over the one who administered the medicine since that person was not a licensee.

Yet now, in the case of Mercedes Clemens, they argue that they DO have jurisdiction over non-licensees who perform animal massage.

Let me get this straight: They have jurisdiction over non-licensees who massage animals, but not those who are administering dangerous medications while working unsupervised in a clinic?

This is hypocritical.

I wish Clemens the best of luck in her suit against this board. They do not have the public’s interests at heart, they do not do their job adequately, and their attempts to keep Clemens and others from performing massage is about funneling money to vets, not about protecting our pets from harm.

Stefani Olsen, Silver Spring