Farm Sanctuary's blog had a thought provoking post about the new veterinary oath and previous "research" that they had conducted on the opinions of veterinarians. Their blog is worth the read if you're interested in this type of thing and since they never post my comments, I have included below:
"Curious, but when was 2% response rate on over 69,000 veterinarians considered an acceptable number to claim that "80% of veterinarians considered gestation crates objectionable"? Considering the fact that this was also a mail survey, that means that people who replied were likely highly opinionated participants and you didn't capture the true essence of the population.
"Secondly, I think you'll find if you conducted a qualified mail survey that veterinarians weren't objecting to adding "welfare" to their oaths for any reason other than fear that animal rights activists and supporters would mislead and misconstrue that oath to the public. Veterinarians have always had the implied obligation to protect an animal's welfare as it pertains to their health; as a health professional it is within their duty and they act on this responsibility. Adding "welfare" to their oath was in my own opinion overkill and unnecessary."