After having the night to consider this and what is the true purpose of the Board, I felt the need to add to my original comments.

The real issue here the standard of care for our patients. Placing a cather is not like a blood draw as shockingly many of the veterinarians here have suggested. A catheter is meant to remain in the vein for an extended period of time, up to 72 hours. The obvious complications being various levels of infection and thrombus, both which can be life threatening to the patient. On the job training is not a substitute for the hours of classwork studying antiseptic techniques and practicing practical skills on models and cadavers.  To say observation and on the job training replace formal education and lab work suggests veteran techs should be able to perform simple surgeries such as a cat neuter. I mean that would really free the Veterinarian up for the emergency case that drops in. It also becomes an issue of "where to draw the line?" Will we allow unlicensed staff to intubate patients? No reason we can't train them to do that; generally there are few complications from intubation.

I think we really need to step back and look at the big picture, this is a procedure which could potentially have life threatening consequences. Yes, most of the time this is a completely safe procedure in a normal healthy pet. But cathter placement can be difficult even for a skilled veterinarian or LVT in a critical emergency patient. The number of placement attempts is corrlated with the occurence of complications. The expectation that a lay person can simply be trained to perform this during an emergency is a huge leap backwards in our standard of care. I would not expect a medical assistant to jump in a place an IV catheter in me if I were in the E.R. or even if I were undergoing a scheduled procedure. Infact, I would expect that to be malpractice.

Which leads me to my final point.

We also need to address the potential public concerns. The vast majority of our clients trust us to care for their pets like family. In my years working as an assistant and then also a LVT I have encountered many clients who express concern at even a licensed individual performing procedures on their animals. To allow an unlicensed person to perform an invasive procedure would surely chip away at the trust we work so hard to build with our clients. It's also important to recognize that "Immediate and direct supervision" means that the licensed veterinarian is immediately available to the licensed veterinary technician or assistant, either electronically or in person, and provides a specific order based on observation and diagnosis of the patient within the last 36 hours. So this unlicensed person could potentially be perfoming a sterile, invasive procedure with no licensed personnel physically present. Don't you think that fact would rub some clients the wrong way?

We want to move our standard of care forward. We want to gain respect from the public and the trust of our clients. This ammendment would take us backwards. It hurts our patients and it hurts our industry.