The strike follows a breakdown in negotiations for better pay and conditions earlier in the year.
Valley Vets, which is owned by VetPartners, offered a 7.27% increase to its lowest paid staff, with smaller increases for higher paid staff.
However, the BVU rejected the offer, describing it as a "derisory real terms pay cut".
A postal ballot was held and 94% of members voted for industrial action, with a 93% turnout.
The BVU says it is open to restarting negotiations in the hope that an improved offer will make the strike unnecessary.
The petition follows the news that IVC is to launch its own telemedicine service, joining three others already in the game, at least one of which is pushing for a relaxation of the rules surrounding the prescription of POM-V medicines.
For clarity, veterinary surgeons are currently allowed to remote prescribe medicines for animals that meet the definition of 'under his care' (i.e. seen immediately before, or "recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe").
In other words, there is nothing to stop bricks and mortar practices offering video consultations and prescribing medicines to those of their existing clients that they have seen recently enough.
What Shams and the BVU are petitioning against is the idea of allowing companies staffed by veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines for animals that they have never seen in the flesh.
They argue that remote prescribing will:
First and foremost risk animal patient welfare and herd health
Create a two-tier system of care within the profession
Break down the practice-based vet-client relationship
Disrupt veterinary services due to complications related to out-of-hours emergency cover, transfer of patient and patient histories etc. of remotely treated patients
Cause clients to face increased costs by paying for telemedicine consultations and then requiring examination and treatment in practice
Negatively impact the financial condition of veterinary practices and professionals.
These all seem very possible consequences of allowing remote prescribing, indeed some have already come to pass in the world of human medicine following the launch of Babylon.
The counter argument is that remote prescription will improve access to veterinary care as people don’t have to flog down to the practice for a flea treatment and the cost of a consultation is reduced. There is surely truth in that.
The other point that is fundamental to this debate is the type of drug being prescribed remotely. With so many small animal parasiticides having already gone OTC, is it really necessary to talk to a veterinary surgeon before buying a POM-V flea treatment? Perhaps not.
However, that doesn’t necessarily present a case for remote prescribing such drugs; if they don’t need veterinary input, then you could equally argue they just need reclassifying.
So, should you sign this petition? Well, I think so, yes. Remote prescribing will come. It’s inevitable. But given the risks, surely the pragmatic starting point is to trial remote prescribing amongst existing clients of bricks and mortar practices, and only if that is successful to broaden it to non-clients of bricks and mortar practices.
If both those proved successful, and with technology advancing in the background, it might then be sensible to look at whether non bricks and mortar practices could remote prescribe. But that’s quite a big ‘might’.
Meantime, you can sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-stop-authorising-prescription-of-pom-v-without-physical-examination-of-the-patient
You can discuss the petition with Shams here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/nonclinical/f/6/t/28273.aspx