Letter: Don’t put veterinarians’ profits ahead of pets’ health

A community that euthanizes 57 percent of our companion pets due to homelessness should be looking for more ways to protect animals. A state that has experienced the tragedies of dog fighting and bear baiting should be eager to provide more support for the great work that not-for-profits are doing to help people and their pets.

But a bill sponsored by Sen. Thomas McElveen and supported by some veterinarians would limit the medical services animal shelters can provide, say who they can serve and stipulate where they can provide mobile-vaccine services.

Animal advocates worry that such a law would limit the number of homeless pets saved. Anyone that has rescued animals realizes how expensive it is to get all of their medical needs met prior to finding them a wonderful home. These adopted pets are all potential clients for for-profit clinics.

Some veterinarians say it’s unfair for tax-exempt shelters to provide low-cost medical services, because this takes business away from them. But universities, church day cares, the YMCA, non-profit hospitals and other not-for-profits provide services for fees. Will the Legislature place similar restrictions on those entities? Do we close the Salvation Army because it takes business from discount clothing stores?

Not-for-profit animal shelters provide resources that help people keep their pets healthy. They are also the primary advocates for preserving the lives of animals in the municipal shelters. All pets need access to care, regardless of their owner’s ability to pay. This bill requires people to swear under oath that they are low-income in order to get comprehensive medical services. How humiliating. What if a pet has a treatable medical problem and the owner simply cannot afford to pay for services at a private clinic? Should the pet be euthanized because the private clinic does not want a not-for-profit serving that pet? The bill would place a hardship on many citizens who rely on the convenience of mobile programs that don’t require appointments and operate when private clinics are closed.

An animal’s life should not be lost because its owner cannot afford the medical services at a private clinic, when a not-for-profit is willing to serve them. The Legislature should reject any bill that limits services by S.C. licensed veterinarians working for not-for-profit shelters.

This story was originally published May 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM.