Some years ago, a Colorado physician, using a mirror, removed his own appendix after notifying the news media. Though the surgery was successful, the medical community was not impressed with this surgical tour de force. Not only did his colleagues not fête him, they quickly revoked his licence to practise.
Why such Draconian justice at what seems, in the end, little more than a sophomoric prank? Worst case scenario, he could have killed himself, thereby permanently, as it were, revoking his own licence. The answer, of course, is that though he had endangered only himself, his judgment was no longer credible. Perhaps, next time, he would choose to remove someone else's appendix while blindfolded, or deliver a baby while standing on his head! Further, his behavior reflects poorly on the whole profession.
The question posed here strikes me as portraying the same sort of impaired judgment. It costs about 500 million dollars to develop and test a human drug for safety and efficacy. A veterinary drug would cost less, but still a significant amount. So here is “Dr. X,” turning out a new vaccine in his kitchen! Not only does this cast doubt on his credibility, it makes the entire veterinary profession look like snake oil salesmen — “Controlled double blind studies? Clinical trials? Hell, we don't need that.”
Contrary to the ever-increasing numbers of true believers in society today who enthusiastically purchase billions of dollars of Asian herbs and other untested nostrums, the money spent on proving efficacy and safety is not wasted. People have died — and continue to die — from biologically active substances that are not FDA-regulated; others have lost the opportunity to undertake validated treatment (This is not to say that validated treatments are always perfectly safe or effective, but at least they represent the best we can do.) The case described is the reductio ad absurdum of the tendency.
What is particularly pernicious about this case is that the irresponsible veterinarian — unlike the physician above — does not endanger primarily himself. Instead, he puts innocent animals and people at risk. The vaccine or antimicrobial drug may be toxic or produce morbidity. Thus, a veterinarian's obligation to the animal is violated. Since the question involves food animals, residues may be toxic to people who consume the treated animals; thus, the veterinarian's obligation to society is violated. The farmer may well have his products condemned or create a situation where his products are not trusted; thus, the veterinarian has violated his obligation to the client. Finally, he has, by his actions, struck a blow to the credibility of the veterinary profession and, thus, has violated his obligation to his peers and the profession. In the same way, he has eroded his own hard-won reputation, thus violating his obligations to himself. In short, one cannot envision a clearer case of unethical behavior.