The VMD's ruling sets a chilling precedent for the curtailment of free speech by a Government body.
The ruling came to light after VetSurgeon.org published an independent video news report relating to the launch of Bravecto Injectable, a new yearly flea treatment for dogs.
The film was neither paid for nor commissioned by the manufacturer, and nor did the maker exercise editorial control over its content.
The film was clearly labelled for and aimed at veterinary professionals, and its intent was not to promote the sale or supply of a prescription medicine, but rather to inform vets and nurses about the new product, albeit in an enthusiastic manner.
It was therefore not an advertisement, but journalism.
The Dictatorship nevertheless argued that it defines any social media content that mentions the brand name of a prescription veterinary medicine and which does not give a balanced overview of all the other treatment options for a given condition, as an advertisement.
This, it said, is regardless of whether content is created by the manufacturer or supplier of drug to promote sales of their product, or any member of the public or journalist who just wants to talk about or report on a prescription medicine publicly without any intent to promote sales.
The Dictatorship's position is that any such content can only appear in spaces dedicated to the appropriate audiences.
Notwithstanding the fact that all of VetSurgeon.org's social media channels are dedicated to the appropriate audiences, it leaves us in the almost laughable position where, according to the VMD, the BBC is allowed to report about powerful prescription medicines for humans in a way that inevitably promotes their supply, but VetSurgeon.org cannot report the launch of ... wait for it ... a flea treatment.
However the VMD then shared its incontinent interpretation of the law in a series of emails in which it was unable to provide a consistent definition of where it would allow content about prescription veterinary medicines to be published.
It first claimed (without any supporting evidence of any law to this effect), that:
"... it would need to be on a closed page which only followers could view would require active confirmation of the follower’s professional status before allowing access."
However, it swiftly backtracked, presumably realising that this definition would require Vet Times to remove most of its content from public view, including actual advertisements for veterinary prescription medicines published by the manufacturer.
When pressed, the VMD changed tack to a rather looser definition:
"Regulation 11(3) of the VMR does allow you to advertise POM-V products at vets and vet nurses, however to ensure this wouldn’t also be considered as advertising to the general public, it would need to be in a closed space, separate from the general public and directed at veterinary healthcare professionals. For example, on a website, or closed social media group."
However, it then presumably realised that Vet Times would still have to remove most of its content because it is not a closed space, and loosened its definition further still.
"Please note that, where an advertisement for POM-V or POM-VPS veterinary medicine appears in a space dedicated to the appropriate audiences this would not be a breach of Regulation 11(1)(a) due to Regulation 11(3) and Regulation 11(5)."
Clearly the Dictatorship was making it up as it went along.
Nevertheless, it threatened VetSurgeon.org that it would contact TikTok and demand removal of the film.
So what does this matter?
Two reasons.
Firstly, it may just be a report about a flea treatment, but there is an important principle at stake here: it is simply not acceptable for the Government to censor free speech about medicines by journalists or members of the public.
This, you would think, is so blatantly obvious that it calls into question the overall competence of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
Secondly, the ruling also demonstrates the VMD's backward-looking, Canute-like view of the world we now live in.
People talk and social media is awash with information about prescription veterinary medicines; just try typing 'Bravecto Injectable' into TikTok.
As we all know much of what you find online is false.
Fighting misinformation online is an unwinnable fight.
So perhaps instead, the VMD should promote the dissemination of accurate information in order to counter the misinformation.
Bear in mind, it is only the VMD's interpretation of the law which dictates that a manufacturer cannot publish information which mentions a brand name or give a balanced overview of all treatment options because it would promote the supply or prescription of a veterinary medicine.
It could equally well be argued that manufacturers publishing strictly factual information, ie devoid of hyperbole, would NOT be intended to promote the supply or prescription, but instead to counter false information and provide owners with information which time-poor vets are not always able to.
That would be a more pragmatic approach which would do far more good than trying to censor independent journalists and the public.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.