Data on the forensic veterinary medical and ethical judgement of the non-conventional (alternative) therapies III. Aspects of the forensic veterinary medical and ethical judgement

In the third and last part of the series of articles the authors try to answer the question whether the forensic veterinary medical and ethical judgement of the non-conventional (alternative) therapies are different from those of conventional veterinary therapies and if so, what are the differences. Because of the general force of the Hungarian Civil Code, a veterinary expert's opinion on the liability for the damages caused by the use of alternative veterinary therapies is based on similar principles than for those caused by the use of conventional therapies. In the course of justification of the compensation the followings should be examined: - was the conduct of the person causing damages illegal? - did any damages occur? - is any dependence of an effect upon a cause between the illegal conduct and the damages occured? - was the conduct of the person causing damages imputable? In Hungary the alternative veterinary therapies have not been officially recognised. Until the recognition the authors suggest that when using these therapies the veterinarians should consider the following principles 1. The examination of the patient should be tarried out on the basis of the classical professional rules and should be reliably documented. 2. It is essential to describe to the owner that the veterinarian wants to rise non-conventional therapy. For the use the veterinarian should have the clear consent of the owner. 3. Non-conventional therapy should be carried out by veterinarian who has the necessary professional competence and knowledge in that field. It is important that the requirements of training and professional competency should be determined as soon as possible by the University of Veterinary Science or by the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber. The regulation should be urged on by the veterinarians having the necessary competence and knowledge in alternative therapies, most effectively, by making a draft. 4. When giving an expert opinion the conduct should be considered illegal, if the veterinarian do not keep the special professional rules of the non-conventional therapy in question. 5. When a conventional therapy has known demonstrable benefit a non-conventional therapy must not be used to exclude it. A veterinarian taking part in a legal dispute as an expert, beside the professional knowledge for giving an opinion in case of damages caused by the use of a conventional therapy, should be prepared far the evaluation of die rise of the non-conventional therapy in question. He or she should have the necessary knowledge on the theory, fields of application, special professional rules and the opinion given by competent international associations concerning the alternative veterinary therapy.