Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Health Professions
 
Board
Board of Veterinary Medicine
 
chapter
Regulations Governing the Practice of Veterinary Medicine [18 VAC 150 ‑ 20]
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
12/4/20  10:07 pm
Commenter: Rebecca Reith,LVT

Opposed
 

I am opposed to an unlicensed veterinary assistant being lawfully approved to place IV catheters for many reasons. 

1. We must maintain standards of care. On the job training varies widely not only state to state, but city to city and even clinic to clinic. Even within a clinic, training between technicians and DVMs varies widely. Licensed professionals have shown competency, reliability, and ability to maintain sterility in placing IV catheters in order to obtain a license. 

2. Knowledge is power. IV catheter placement may not seem like much to the untrained eye, but there are many safety reasons to maintain this skill within a licensed professional’s job description. An IVC that is not placed correctly in an ANY situation (surgery, emergency, chemotherapy, hospitalization, euthanasia, etc) could cause severe harm to an animal. Licensed professionals have proven their knowledge and abilities are solid and reliable.

3. Remember the oath! Licensed professionals are bound by our oath to do no harm - unlicensed professionals have not promised any oath to anyone. Licensed professionals have a duty to serve the animal, client, veterinarian, teammates, employers, etc. We are held to a very high standard and are well aware of all risks involved when administering a treatment and carrying out orders. 

4. Pets are family. What do we think the clients would want? Would they want a person trained off the street placing an IVC into their family companion - or would they rather have a licensed professional who has proven their skill and holds a degree as proof of that knowledge? 

I am opposed to allowing unlicensed people perform a task on my own animal- I stand against allowing it to happen to someone else’s. 

CommentID: 87583