As I read the comments made by my colleagues on the proposed changes to anesthetic monitoring, I would like to make comment on their thoughts by just saying 'DITTO'!  However, I think Dr. Dubin covers all the relevant information on this subject, and, Lee Henkel makes a brilliant statement on a slight change in the wording of the regulation.  

Everyone knows it is impossible, in rural Virginia, to have the recommended 'three LVTs for each Veterinarian'. And, even if it were possible to draw LVTs to rural areas, and, then, keep them, it would/could be cost prohibitive. This, in turn, would result in increased costs to the public and, ultimately, reduce the medical care many of our clients provide to their pets.  

The Regulatory Board needs to remember that the Veterinarian is ultimately responsible for the care of the patient.  And, if that Vet has properly trained an assistant in the care and monitoring of an anesthetized patient, the risks to the patient should be minimal, while a Vet is readily available. That is--'on the premises'. It seems that this would maintain and provide 'the standard of care', and would not blur the line of who is ultimately responsible.  

Thank you for your time.

Dr. Sheryl Carls