As an LVT and practice owner I think we spend too much time focusing on these hot topic issues instead of tackling the larger issue at hand. I agree that allowing trained unlicensed assistants to place IVC (lmited to periperal, excluding jugular) would be more efficient at times, providing better patient care and pratice flow. However, this should not be done in leui of hiring an LVT, instead as a means to allow the LVT to use their time more efficiently in other ways. I do not buy into the idea that there is a shortage of LVTs...we currently have 4 on staff (3 FT, 1 PT) and 3 assistants enrolled in an LVT program. If you cannot find an LVT to work for you but your assistants are wanting to progress in their skill set, why not support them by encouraging them to become licensed (we contribute 500.00 per year toward their CE/tuition)? I feel the LVT profession needs to be willing to/activily looking for ways to progress in their skill set as well, such as becoming profficient in u/s, epidurals, anesthesia/pain control, dental extractions, unblocking cats (in Britain even castrating cats), suturing, etc instead of fighting over venipuncture, SQ injections, and IVC palcements. These "grey areas" have went back in forth in the legal gargan for years but many vets do not abide by the law. Lets spell out more LVT tasks that could free up time for the Dr (such as NPs do in human medicine) and stop getting our toes stepped on. This might in fact give LVTs more job satisfaction, set us apart as a profession, and get resistant DVMS to see the return on investment of the extra payroll.