Click here to see video, reported by Dee Morrison, woodtv.com, January 9, 2006

Veterinarian suspended, fined, over animal care, wwmt.com, Janaury 9, 2006

Kalamazoo veterinarian suspended again, mlive.com, January 11, 2006

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

by Julie Catalano, founder, vetabusenetwork.com 

Because of his own actions, "Doctor" Steven Ginsberg has once again proven himself to be a major problem for Michigan pets and their guardians since 1999. His treatment of Lucy the Dog and subsequent disciplinary action by the state board in 2001 first exposed him forever to the public eye, thanks to people who could not remain silent about what they had seen and what witnesses and documented proof confirmed to the state attorney general about Ginsberg's repeated negligent, incompetent treatment of animals. 

Media coverage has thankfully heightened the level of consumer awareness regarding the problem of abusive, incompetent, and negligent vets, allowing a concerned public to make more informed choices as to the veterinary care their pets receive. Animal advocates in various states are taking an increased interest not only in their own cases but in situations arising in other states. Vetabusenetwork.com itself filed a complaint with the Michigan state board in 2003, based on evidence on the board's own website and conversations with a board agency representative, regarding allegations that Ginsberg was practicing with a lapsed license; that complaint was dismissed. However, multiple complaints by his victims in the past year alone resulted in investigations being opened by the Michigan state board, which led to Ginsberg's latest suspension and  fine. 

But is it enough? How many times can a veterinarian like this be allowed to blatantly violate the laws of his own profession; violate surgical protocol as he did in the first suspension; and violate standard of care. Yet here he is again with MORE SURGICAL VIOLATIONS, SUBSTANDARD CARE, AND RECORDKEEPING PROBLEMS. Why is Steven Ginsberg still allowed to even call himself a doctor, much less allowed to keep a license that gives him access to more victims who cannot speak for themselves. 

Granted, in the world of veterinary boards, Ginsberg's disciplinary action is huge: State veterinary boards (made up primarily of vets) usually mete out a puny slap on the wrist, maybe a letter of reprimand, and a whopping $250 fine, if that. Active suspensions are hard to come by; most of them are "stayed" -- meaning on paper only-- making sure the vet never misses a day of work. For the Michigan Board to hand Ginsberg his second ACTIVE suspension in five years and a hefty $5000 fine says a lot -- but not enough.

State boards are the only entities that can affect a vet's license to practice. This makes their responsibility to the public enormous: No other organization can actively protect companion animals from negligent, incompetent vets like Ginsberg except the state board. Not the Better Business Bureau, not Consumer Affairs, not civil courts, not criminal courts, and certainly not the AVMA or any other professional vet organization even if they wanted to, and they don't. Only the state boards have the power to protect our pets. In Ginsberg's case, how many times will he be hauled in front of the board before somebody in Lansing gets a clue? 

Although I applaud any state board that does anything -- yes, even a puny slap on the wrist -- to any vet who so egregiously thumbs his nose at the law, the sad fact is that Steven Ginsberg will be happily back at work at Crestview Animal Hospital in Kalamazoo long before the spring thaw. How many more unsuspecting clients will be taken in by this "doctor" who doesn't seem to understand or respect the Veterinary Practice Act, or clients who entrust their pets to him every day? How many more surgical patients have to suffer and/or die at his hands? How many veterinarians or people will look the other way, or worse, start feeling sorry for the guy, as he will no doubt attempt to turn himself into the "real" victim as he has in the past -- as they ALL do when they get caught. 

Indeed, on the television news coverage of the story, a fellow veterinarian defended Ginsberg, claiming that what happened to these latest victims happens all the time. Even if that is true -- and frightening, I might add -- that is not the point. This latest incident is symptomatic of Ginsberg's continued pattern of substandard care, abuse of public and private trust, sloppy recordkeeping -- all absolute proof of negligence, incompetence, unprofessional conduct, violations of the standard of care, and more. A second suspension in five years should prove once and for all that someone like this does not belong in the veterinary profession, much less being defended by other vets. For anyone to minimize what Ginsberg did to these two kittens is appalling.

How many other veterinarians feel the same condescending, cavalier way toward the public, our pets, and our right to standard of care? How many veterinarians routinely violate the laws of their profession in their exam rooms and operating rooms, in secret, knowing that the boards will protect them, and fellow doctors will come to their defense? Does yours? Do you know? 

When this latest disciplinary action against Ginsberg surfaced, I thought of Lucy. Lucy's Site was the first site of its kind that I ran across when I started this site in 2000 -- one that is dedicated to educating the public about what can happen to your pet behind closed doors, and about board systems that look the other way behind closed doors, allowing "doctors" such as this to keep practicing behind closed doors no matter how many animals are mistreated behind closed doors.

Lucy the Dog and Suki the Cat died the same year, 1999. Lucy's Story and her site were an inspiration to me to speak out against abuses in the veterinary profession, almost as much as what happened to Suki was. It proved that one animal, one person, can make a difference. I never think of Suki without thinking of Lucy, and all the other victims of veterinary incompetence, negligence, malpractice, and abuse. I think of one cat, one dog, and all of the countless other victims -- some we know about, some we don't. 

If you don't know Lucy, please take a moment to check out her site. Although her case had nothing to do with Steven Ginsberg's latest disciplinary action, she is one of his  victims. There is no way of knowing if she was the first, but we know now that she was not the last. Ginsberg will be back at work in a month. Lucy will not be coming back. Does the veterinary profession really need a Steven Ginsberg in it? How many more pets will be mistreated behind closed doors, with future clients knowing nothing until it is too late. But we know. Animal advocates know. The media knows. And the Michigan board knows. 

Enough is enough.