Anyone working on animals?

I offer Shaktipat for animals. Sometimes animals let in more than humans do! It wasn't planned it just happened that way. A while ago I wouldn't even qualify as an anmal lover...
There is a connection with animals, they spontaneously receive grace quite instinctively.

Make sure a vet is either present, or has given permission for each animal you treat; otherwise it's against the law* to treat animals.

(*Faith healing is exempt - in other words, you can call upon your Gods to heal an animal, but you can't channel your own healing energy through your fingers.)

Make sure a vet is either present, or has given permission for each animal you treat; otherwise it's against the law* to treat animals.

(*Faith healing is exempt - in other words, you can call upon your Gods to heal an animal, but you can't channel your own healing energy through your fingers.)

Actually this is incorrect.

The law states that the laying of hands is legally permissable. And a vet doesn't need to be present at all and it doesn't need to give permission. If you want to cover yourself, get the client to sign a form to say they have taken the animal to the vet. If they haven't done so, you just write that you have advised the client to take their pet to the vet, but you can still go ahead and give healing.

Actually this is incorrect.

Hi Rosi1,

How interesting. Can you tell me which part of The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 permits the laying on of hands? Or perhaps there is some newer legislation which I've missed?

Thanks chaps. Is there a part of that act that say's it's illegal? Would it apply to me as i'm not a vet?

thanks

Kevin

Hi Rosi1,

How interesting. Can you tell me which part of The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 permits the laying on of hands? Or perhaps there is some newer legislation which I've missed?

Let me see if I can find an old post, as this was discussed there. The NFSH, which is now the Healing Trust has in their code of conduct a section which states that spiritual healing/reiki/laying of hands is permissible where animals are concerned. It has been for years and is perfectly acceptable.

I will see if I can dig out the old post.

The NFSH, which is now the Healing Trust has in their code of conduct a section which states that spiritual healing/reiki/laying of hands is permissible where animals are concerned.

I'm not particularly interested in what the Healing Trust have to say on the matter, only on what the legislation actually says.

(I've noticed that many of the professional associations are giving out advice which appears to have been written by someone who has never read the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. It would be a mistake, I think, to rely on their interpretations.)

I remember when I was training to become a remedial massage therapist, we were told that if we wish to treat animals, then it must be under the direct supervision of a vet to comply with the veterinary act which makes provision for manipulative therapies to be utilised for animals.

I do not seem to be able to find a clause which relates to healers, but I would imaging that unless a healer was suitably qualified as a vet, then they too would need to work under the direction of a vet to comply with the law as it stands.

VETERINARY ACT 1966
The veterinary Surgery Act of 1966 prohibits anyone than a qualified veterinary surgeon from treating animals, including diagnosis of ailments and giving advice on such diagnosis, However, the healing of animals by contact healing, by the laying on of hands or distant healing is legal. However the Protection of Animals Act 1911 requires that if an animal clearly needs treatment from a veterinary surgeon the owner must obtain this. Therefore before treating an animal it is advisable to seek assurance from the owner that the animal has been examined by the vet.
To give emergency first aid to animals for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain is permissible under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 Schedule.

The Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1962

With the movement of Complementary Therapies into the field of animal treatment, this Order was introduced to amend the [url]Veterinary Surgeons Act[/url] to take such legitimate therapies into account.
As far as Complementary Therapies are concerned, this Order refers to 4 categories:
Manipulative Therapies
This covers only Physiotherapy, Osteopathy and Chiropractic and allows these therapies where a vet has diagnosed the condition and decided that this treatment would be appropriate.

Animal behaviourism
Behavioural treatment is exempt, unless medication is used where permission must again be sought from the vet.

Faith Healing
According to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, Faith Healers have their own Code of Practice which indicates that permission must be sought from a vet before healing is given by the "laying on of hands"

Other complementary Therapies
"It is illegal, in terms of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, for lay practitioners however qualified in the human field, to treat animals. At the same time it is incumbent on veterinary surgeons offering any complementary therapy to ensure that they are adequately trained in its application." ([DLMURL="http://www.rcvs.org.uk/templates/internal.asp?nodeid=92572&int2ndparentnodeid=89737&int1stparentnodeid=89642"]RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2000[/DLMURL] - treatment of animals by non-veterinary surgeons)
So, apart from the manipulative therapies, behavioural treatment and faith healing, all other forms of Complementary Therapy are illegal in the treatment of animals.
The Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order states that: -
1. The Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1962 allows for the treatment of animals by 'physiotherapy', provided that the animal has first been seen by a veterinary surgeon who has diagnosed the condition and decided that it should be treated by physiotherapy under his/her direction.
2. 'Physiotherapy' is interpreted as including all kinds of manipulative therapy. It therefore includes osteopathy and chiropractic but would not, for example, include acupuncture or aromatherapy.

I'm not particularly interested in what the Healing Trust have to say on the matter, only on what the legislation actually says.

(I've noticed that many of the professional associations are giving out advice which appears to have been written by someone who has never read the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. It would be a mistake, I think, to rely on their interpretations.)

A reputable organisation like the Healing Trust which has been around for many years is unlikely to flaunt the law and get away with it. The reason their code of conduct states you can give healing to animals as per the Veterinary Act, is precisely because you can!

Hi Rosi1

It appears that the proviso is that a faith healer will seek the permission of a vet before performing faith healing, so assuming that healers who are not faith healers are allowed to heal animals and they do not fall under the heading of complimentary therapy, then as long as they seek the permission of a vet before commencing healing, they should be covered.

Now the devil as usual is always in the detail, Personally I am not a faith healer and neither are most healers including Reiki, I also do not classify my healing as a complimentary therapy, so I don't know where I would fall within this concerning my healing services?

Hi Kevin,
I have had some limited experience - never charged....what do you want to know?

love
chris

I have never contacted a vet prior to giving an animal healing. If you are unsure, get them to sign a disclaimer that they have taken their animal to the vet. That is all that is required. The Healing Trust have been working like this for years, and no prior permission needs to be sought from the vet before commencing.

VETERINARY ACT 1966
The veterinary Surgery Act of 1966 prohibits anyone than a qualified veterinary surgeon from treating animals, including diagnosis of ailments and giving advice on such diagnosis, However, the healing of animals by contact healing, by the laying on of hands or distant healing is legal. However the Protection of Animals Act 1911 requires that if an animal clearly needs treatment from a veterinary surgeon the owner must obtain this. Therefore before treating an animal it is advisable to seek assurance from the owner that the animal has been examined by the vet.
To give emergency first aid to animals for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain is permissible under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 Schedule.

Hi Rosi1

Your last post differs from your earlier post which outlined the law, is your latest post someone's interpretation of the law which according to your earlier post states:

apart from the manipulative therapies, behavioural treatment and faith healing, all other forms of Complementary Therapy are illegal in the treatment of animals.

It can't mean two opposing things at the same time, it either means what it says that the only inclusion is manipulative therapies, behavioural treatments and faith healing and excludes all other therapies.

I have never contacted a vet prior to giving an animal healing. If you are unsure, get them to sign a disclaimer that they have taken their animal to the vet. That is all that is required. The Healing Trust have been working like this for years, and no prior permission needs to be sought from the vet before commencing.

Now that statement contradicts the law or the RCVS interpretation of that aspect of the law, which you have quoted in your earlier post as:

Faith Healing
According to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, Faith Healers have their own Code of Practice which indicates that permission must be sought from a vet before healing is given by the "laying on of hands"

The veterinary act is there to primarily protect the welfare of animals, unless the owner happens to be a suitably qualified vet, then they are not (as stated in the law) suitably qualified to give anyone unqualified as a vet permission to break the law and treat their animals.

We were taught that the responsibility lies with the therapist or in this case a faith healer to contact the vet and ensure that they get the vet's permission to perform their service and guidance before commencing any treatment, if people fail to do this then they are personally open to litigation for flouting the law as well as potential compensation claims from the owners.

Hi thanks guys. Especially Rosi for all of the input. I appreciate that.

Just wanted to know of peoples experiences of animal healing Chris. Or any input for that matter.

Therefore before treating an animal it is advisable to seek assurance from the owner that the animal has been examined by the vet.

This part say's it's only advisable.

slw, I find your approach abrasive and not really that helpful or appropriate. Particularly as you have yet to show us evidence of your claim.

Thanks again.

VETERINARY ACT 1966
The veterinary Surgery Act of 1966 prohibits anyone than a qualified veterinary surgeon from treating animals, including diagnosis of ailments and giving advice on such diagnosis, However, the healing of animals by contact healing, by the laying on of hands or distant healing is legal. However the Protection of Animals Act 1911 requires that if an animal clearly needs treatment from a veterinary surgeon the owner must obtain this. Therefore before treating an animal it is advisable to seek assurance from the owner that the animal has been examined by the vet.
To give emergency first aid to animals for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain is permissible under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 Schedule.

What is the source of this quote?

I did a search on the phrases cited and the only websites who use these phrases verbatim are all healing websites. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (as found on ) itself has no mention of contact healing, laying on of hands etc. Maybe someone somewhere queried whether it was okay to use healing modalities such as faith healing, Reiki etc. and was cited the quote given?

If you look on the RCVS site you will see the phrasing that is used.

We were taught that the responsibility lies with the therapist or in this case a faith healer to contact the vet and ensure that they get the vet's permission to perform their service and guidance before commencing any treatment, if people fail to do this then they are personally open to litigation for flouting the law as well as potential compensation claims from the owners.

Can I just add, an animals owner is legally responsible for his/her animal and as such can use any form of therapy he/she chooses as long as it is not an invasive therapy. This is their basic right. The only thing a healer needs to do is get a signed consent form that states that the persons animal has been seen by a vet.

If this is done, healing can be given. The Healing Trust has been operating like this for many years now, I've yet to hear of an animal healer that has been sued because they have given healing to animals.

Vets are pretty open when their clients tell them their pet is receiving healing. I've yet to hear of any vet refusing a healing treatment for anyones animal.

But like anything, you have to do what you feel is best.

I am happy to get the client to sign a form stating their animal has been seen by a vet and will give healing. I even had a horse seek me out in a field once, and of course I gave healing. Such a spontaneous act of unconditioinal love doesn't need red tape to get in the way of a basic human interaction. As with all things, common sense should dictate.

Hi Rosi1

Can I just add, an animals owner is legally responsible for his/her animal and as such can use any form of therapy he/she chooses as long as it is not an invasive therapy. This is their basic right. The only thing a healer needs to do is get a signed consent form that states that the persons animal has been seen by a vet.

Unfortunately that is not what this law states, the only legal form of therapy that can be utilised, is one which is sanctioned by a competently qualified professional vet, that is assuming that the vet thinks that the proposed therapy is in the best interest of the wellbeing of the animal.

Faith healing

18. Faith healers are required in terms of the Code of Practice of the Confederation of Healing Organisations, to ensure that animals have been seen by a veterinary surgeon who is content for healing to be given by the laying on of hands.

There is a big difference between what an owner of an animal can do to them within the framework of this law and what someone else can do to the animal and stay within the framework of this law.

It is not the owner's right which this law protects, it is the animal's right to receive competent treatments from suitably qualified and responsible people.

Hi Kevin,
It seems your thread has been hijacked by (useful nonetheless) info about the legalities - I've worked on a few dogs and a few horses, with the owners permission of course, in fact with horses I think it helps to have them there.
The process is very interesting, it is about entering the energybody of the animal (a sort of mental shapeshifting exercise) and then finding the areas where there are issues. If a horse does not want it, it will not happen, I've found young horses especailly skittish during this phase if they are uncomfotable with it, in that case a bit of distant healing may help more. Horses really see the energy and respond well. Just be guided by the horse, once it settles it will show you what needs doing.

chris

Margrit Coates does a lot of healing with animals, and horses in particular, you can search on google and she will come up. She has also written some great books on healing animals and one specifically about working with horses, very informative and worth getting.

The horses I've given healing too have welcomed it very well, I found the experinences very special and humbling.

I especially enjoyed being knocked by one horse in a field, took me a while to realise it wanted healing. When I lay my hands on it, it relaxed its head totally and did what I call a healing pose, mouth open, teeth showing, totally letting go.

I found out later that it had an incurable food disease and wasn't well.

The law didn't come into it, I did the most natural thing and it was a wonderful moment. But working on our own levels of fear when it comes to the most natural act is part of the process of growing as a healer.

Thanks everyone for your input.I know someone with a horse that has sinusitis. It is under the care of a vet. I may use it as a case study.

Healing animals

I studied Reiki here and in India. My Indian guru himself has had much success with treating animals mainly dogs. Obviously in India the codes of practise are very much more relaxed than here.

I usually treat feline friends. In my experience cats love Reiki energy, particularly the older they get. I find that cats over a certain age 10+ enjoy reiki, it helps them relax and be calm (which can be useful if one is moving house or going to the vet in a cat basket). Also Reiki can be beneficial to their arthiritis. My own cat who doesn't usually sit on people, sits on my lap and will receive 10 to 20 minutes Reiki on his limbs. His eyes are generally awake at this time (sometimes he nods off though). He will only come when he feels like it, but seems much more mobile after a session. I also heal my friends cats especially one who is terrified of his cat basket and going in the car.

I don't usually do other animals and I would always ask a vet if in doubt. As with humans, animals can definitely benefit with Reiki and some complimentary therapies which do not replace the expertise of a vet but may be useful as well as.

I give reiki to animals.

If you get in touch with the RCVS you will find that they class reiki as faith healing or spiritual healing and you do not need a vet to be present.

I get the owners to complete a form stating if the animal has any medical condition and if they are taking medication. I have a disclaimer at the bottom saying that if the animal does have a medical condition that they should seek advice from their vet and also to let the vet know that reiki sessions are to be given especially if the animal is on any form of medication so this too can be monitored.
Most of the animals I have given reiki to HAVE had medical conditions and it helps greatly, and as has been said before most vets are quite open to reiki and know that it can be of great help to animals so its highly unlikely that a vet will actually say no

If in any doubt of anything contact the RCVS they are really helpful. It is a bit of a minefield out there as homeopaths can advise you what to give your animal but they can't treat someone elses animal! :o?

You will of course need separate insurance to treat animals

Kevin, that would be a great case study! let us know how you go on.

Has it occured to anyone that the animal concerned should always be asked to give its consent as to whether it wants the healing or not?
Somthing i have always done after all you wouldn't do a healing on a person without their consent~ would you now?

I too give Reiki to animals. I will offer it and if they want it they come and take as much as they need, if they don't want it they walk away. I always check with the owner to see what a vet has said, and tell them to tell the vet afterwards so they can see the (usual!) difference it has made. The vets usually dismiss it and really aren't bothered and have the idea that if the owner is happy, who are they to argue! I don't know any vets who say 'No' to healing for animals.Reiki treatments really can make the most amazing difference to an animal, and really as it can do no harm, the animal should surely be the one to choose.:)

I too give Reiki to animals. I will offer it and if they want it they come and take as much as they need, if they don't want it they walk away. I always check with the owner to see what a vet has said, and tell them to tell the vet afterwards so they can see the (usual!) difference it has made. The vets usually dismiss it and really aren't bothered and have the idea that if the owner is happy, who are they to argue! I don't know any vets who say 'No' to healing for animals.Reiki treatments really can make the most amazing difference to an animal, and really as it can do no harm, the animal should surely be the one to choose.:)

I quite agree. It should be a spontaneous act and when it is so, it is the most natural thing in the world.