Abstract

This article investigates, using a sociology of profession approach, why veterinarians and aqua medicine biologists share jurisdiction in fish health in Norway. I use a five-actor framework to highlight key events in the development of the Norwegian model for inter-professional and cross-sectoral collaboration in fish health. Veterinarians were initially the only profession involved in fish health. However, in the late 1980s, the Norwegian aquaculture industry suffered great losses due to significant disease outbreaks. Lack of scientific knowledge about the disease causing the outbreaks, Hitra disease, and lack of veterinary capacity to cope with the problem resulted in a situation in which veterinarians continued, as an early response to the disease, to use antibiotic-based therapies. The marine science milieu, with support from the aquaculture industry, instituted a vaccine solution to the endemic Hitra disease in 1987. This scientific breakthrough had major impacts on combatting fish diseases and on the further development of vaccines. New vaccine solutions for other diseases, such as furunculosis, were developed by international and multidisciplinary collaboration. Over a 7-year period, the use of antibiotic-based therapy was dramatically reduced. The control of fish diseases is aquaculture’s X factor, and without these vaccine solutions and regulation regimes, the story of Norwegian aquaculture could have been different. The successful development of the Hitra disease vaccine enabled the marine science milieu at the University of Bergen and the University of Tromsø to establish a new programme of education for aqua medicine biologists based on their own scientific knowledge base. However, their struggle for shared jurisdiction, including the right to prescribe veterinary medicine, lasted nearly 20 years. In 2005, veterinary legislation was amended, and in addition to medical doctors, dentists and veterinarians, aqua medicine biologists, as the fourth profession in Norway, gained the right to prescribe medical products. I argue that the experience in Norway, where professionals from two different sectors share jurisdiction and work side by side in fish health, is worth examining as a model for organizing inter-professional and cross-sectoral collaboration.

Highlights

  • It is remarkable that Norway, a country with a large fish production sector, has changed its veterinary legislation and allowed two professions to share jurisdiction over fish health

  • The main contribution of this article is to advance understandings of how occupational expert groups and professions operate in a new work field and how the interrelations between actors determine the success of a professionalization process

  • I consider the scientific dispute and institutional controversies around the Hitra disease to be events that have had a major impact on the development of the Norwegian model for shared jurisdiction

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is remarkable that Norway, a country with a large fish production sector, has changed its veterinary legislation and allowed two professions to share jurisdiction over fish health. It is within this five-actor framework (practising professionals, the state, the users, universities and other advanced training institutions and other professions or knowledge-based groups) that I examine why Norway has developed a model with shared jurisdiction between veterinarians and aqua medicine biologists in a newly created work field. In 2005, Directive 2004/28/EC amended Directive 2001/82/EC on the community code relating to veterinary medical products, allowing member states to decide who was qualified to prescribe veterinary prescriptions: ‘Any prescription for a veterinary medicinal product issued by a professional person qualified to do so in accordance with applicable national law’ (Directive 2004/28/EC, Article 1, section 21) It took many years and many involved actors (users, universities and research institutions, ministries) before the aqua medicine biologists could celebrate the end of a battle to be allowed to prescribe medicine for fish. In 2007, after nearly 20 years, all necessary regulations were amended, and veterinarians and aqua medicine biologists were juxtaposed in the fish health field

Discussion and concluding remarks
Findings
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.