Why a veterinary reference in Romanian?
The standard of care should not depend on a clinician's English proficiency.
There are tens of thousands of veterinarians practising in Romania. Each of them trained from partially translated or untranslated handbooks, read guidelines in English or French, attended congresses in languages they managed with effort. The standard of care for an animal — dog, horse, cow, cat — should not depend on the English-language proficiency of the clinician treating it. That is the entire reason Lares exists.
The barrier
A language barrier is not a minor inconvenience.
Modern veterinary medicine produces guidelines, protocols, and product monographs in English. Occasionally French or German. Rarely Romanian. A practitioner in Cluj or Iași who wants to check an equine analgesia protocol or consult the WSAVA vaccination guidelines reads them in English — or does not read them at all. This is not a criticism of clinicians. It is an observation about a system that treats access to knowledge as a privilege of those who studied in western languages or could afford training courses with translated materials. The standard of care should not have language barriers. A treatment guideline does not become more applicable or safer because the clinician reads it in English rather than Romanian. It simply becomes more accessible.
In practice
What "in Romanian" means in practice.
This is not about automatic translation of texts that already exist in English. It is about a corpus — organised, cited, and updated — presented in Romanian, with correct veterinary clinical terminology, with doses in the systems Romanian practitioners are accustomed to. Lares builds that corpus. Sources are international — WSAVA, ESCCAP, EMA, VMD — but the interface, terminology, and context are Romanian. A clinician in Romania should not be doing a mental translation from English while verifying a dose at 3 AM.
Consensus
Consensus, not opinion.
There is an essential distinction we maintain carefully: Lares does not produce clinical opinions. It surfaces the consensus of the discipline — what international guidelines say, what the authorised monograph states, what professional organisations recommend. This is not a product limitation — it is its foundation. A tool that would emit its own clinical judgements is not a reference tool. It is something more dangerous. And, in the absence of a consolidated Romanian corpus, it is not what veterinarians in Romania need. They need access to the knowledge that already exists — in Romanian, cited, and current.
Per scientiam, vigilamus.
Through knowledge, we keep watch.
We watch. We protect. We help.