here are 4,000 veterinarians in the state of Virginia and there are ~900 Licensed Veterinary Technicians.  The numbers don’t work.

Support.  LVT’s are not LVTs because they can place catheters, they have the training and knowledge to be much more than that.

Support.  Instead of LVT, their title should be Veterinary Nurse (CVN, CRVN) and then have the opportunity to expand their capabilities to become the equivalent of a Nurse Practitioner or  Physicians Assistant on the human side.  

Support.  Will only work well if the result is economical and complete veterinary care for the client.  Simply making a task specific only to LVTs without the supply of LVTs will raise the cost of care to clients.  Supply and demand states that if a price increases then demand will decrease.

Support.  For years, because there are not enough LVTs, veterinarians have had to rely on non-licensed assistants to place catheters.  If this initiative is voted down then how will anything change?  There are still not enough LVTs.

Support.  This is simply a turf war that is detrimental to the provision of veterinary services to The Commonwealth.  

Support.  The view of the opponents to the is initiative is very narrow, there is a much larger view of the entire veterinary profession in which they can fill a need at an even higher level of nursing care.

Support.  This is a regulation that is unenforceable because there are not enough LVTs to satisfy the regulation.  

Support.  Regardless of who places the catheter, the responsibility for the care of the patient still lies with the veterinarian of record.  

Support.  This is a solution without a problem.

Support.  LVTs are not all created equal in my experience.  Every veterinarian knows a non-licensed assistant that they would trust at least as much or more than a licensed veterinary technician.

Support.  Based on current output of LVTs from technical schools and attrition from LVTs leaving the field, we’ll never have enough LVTs to place catheters.

Support.  I’m all for having trained support staff because they are critical to providing high quality veterinary medicine but an LVT is more than one technique.  

Support.  My guess is that 70% of the state is underserved by adequate numbers of LVTs.  The overriding concern here should be offering high-level veterinary care at a good price to the entire Commonwealth, not just areas that can afford to attract and pay LVTs.

Support.  Licensed Veterinary Tech school teaches knowledge and information and does not properly prepare these students for the hands on skill sets required to be a complete LVT.

Support.  Why do we still have to train them how to do hands on skills when they come out of school?

Support.  Question to the Board, have you ever seen a case of harm to a pet due to misplacement of an IV catheter?

Support.  Not all of us have practices in areas where LVTs live, if this initiative is declined, how will the Board help me get LVTs in my county?

Support.  Does the board know if there are enough LVTs for the number of practicing veterinarians in this state?

Support.  By my calculation, to meet the current regulation we’d need 7,000 LVTs.  Can this number be met?

Support.  Looking at the entire veterinary field, we need training and education and not a regulation for a single technique.

Support.  Why don’t the LVTs look to the medical model where we have certain nurses with specific education and training to be able to do more medicine to more fully support the veterinarian medically?

Support.  Can all of the LVTs who oppose this initiative honestly say they can place a catheter better than an experienced assistant just because they have the certification?  Or is it because they put in the time to practice, and master, this technique?

Support.  The people of the commonwealth don’t understand or care about this argument.  They will tell you that they trust that their veterinarian is doing a good job for their pet and want this service done at a reasonable price.

Support.  Most LVTs don’t spend a career as an LVT so I can’t see there being enough LVTs coming in to the system to meet the demand.  

Support.  All regulations have economic costs, removing this one only benefits the citizens of Virginia and does not affect quality of care.  

Support.  The veterinarian is ultimately responsible for the care of the patient, not the LVT.

Support.  This has been a long time coming and it is time for us to do the right thing for the citizens of Virginia and support this amendment.

Support.  This regulation has not been able to be complied with since it was enacted in 1984!

Support.  This amendment simply reflects reality.

Support.  Has the Board travelled outside of Richmond to see how veterinary medicine is practiced in rural areas?  

Support.  The previous regulation is detrimental to the good of the Commonwealth, this amendment is beneficial.

Support.  Opposing this amendment continues a regulation that hasn’t worked since it was written.

Support.  Supporting this amendment will have no adverse effect on the quality of medicine.  

Support.  Strongly support, so overdue.