While I can understand the reasoning for a small rural practice to need an LVT to perform live saving measures, including place an IVC, I do not agree with this bill. In a life saving situation, a DVM should be on hand either way. Additionally, it is not enough to simply place an IVC "as a life saving need" as there are follow up steps to placing it in an emergency that without training will not be performed properly.

We should be having conversations about how to raise up assistants into LVT, rather than discuss how we can slid backwards on our hard earn progress forward by further belittling the board certification and education LVT's go through. If we would like to add a phlebotomy certification to prevent full LVT status, then I would be for that. I do not think that this should go without a serious training program. LVT's are expensive because we perform well and come with knowledge. This will only further perpetuate doctors not hiring LVTs and keep our pay at low rates. In some practices, IVC placement is the only thing that sets an LVT apart from an assistant. Taking this from them is a slap in the face for our hard earned tears and time spent on education.