I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure.  The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice.  28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable.  I request that the process begin again, with another comment period.  And this time, pay attention to the public!  These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

I vehemently object to unlicensed students practicing on the public’s pets as early as their first year of vet school without adding the safeguard of mandatory, fully-informed owner consent. Plainly, a sign that merely states “students working here” is less than full consent and, indeed, smacks of avoidance and obfuscation.

Further, it was also plain from the last comment period that the public--to whom you owe your duty--is squarely opposed: of 94 comments, 74 expressly were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice and 28 expressly were opposed to a sign in the office saying “students working here.”

I would be outraged if I discovered my pet had been was seen by a 1st year student without my knowledge or my consent. Our pets are part of our family & we expect professional care. A student practicing without supervision is not acceptable.

While I understand it is important for student doctors of ANY kind (animal or human) to get practice on actual live patients, I STRONGLY object to this practice being done without consent of the subject or the owner of the subject.  By that I mean veterinary students should not be allowed to practice on live pets without the express permission of said animals' owner.  One has to give permission for a student to be involved in one's care as a human...even for children.  Why do our pets deserve a lesser standard?  A sign in the waiting room is insufficient notice.  Additionally, during the last comment period the VAST majority of commenters indicated they did NOT agree with the proposal, but yet those comments were ignored.  Please do not make that mistake again.  Pet owners have a right to know exactly who is treating their beloved family members and allowed to make a fully informed consent (or decline.)  

.

The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period.

I believe another public comment period should be provided, as I do not believe that the public's opinion was adequately considered during the past opportunities for discussion.

I hereby state that I object to the regulations in their current form. I am requestiing that you open a new comment period, and pay close attention to the objections posed by the public.  Though we are the onew who bendfit the most from the thorough training of new physicians, our objections to methods used in that training ARE just as important.  Thank you.

I object to students of veterinary meducine performing rasks that nirmally require a license to do.  Animals are more vulnerable than people as patients because they can't speak. Therefore, humane practice calls for a higher level of caution. Unless an owner gives written explicit consent, students should not be allowed to learn on their beloved pets. The comments should be opened again.

I strongly object to the guidelines/requlations in the current form written. Animals entrusted to us by God deserver much more care that someone 'practicing' and learning while they are suffering. Please reopen the comment period.

I object to this proposal and I am angry and disheartened that public comment seems to be ignored. Keep public comment open. What possible objection can there be to owners being told that students are working on our pets? I object to first year students doing procedures and believe that the rule for fourth year should remain the same. But if this is not possible there needs to be direct consent from each owner for students to work on pets. This is just common sense, please give us that much consideration and respect.

Regardless of whether a living beings have fur or feathers or scales, they are members of a families who love and cares for them..  I oppose the closing of comments on this practice and request a continuance for the public to comment.. 

Regardless of whether a living beings have fur or feathers or scales, they are members of  families who love and cares for them..  I oppose the closing of comments on this practice and request a continuance for the public to comment.. 

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

What is the problem with adding one line to an admission form agreeing to consent to student practice? Why is this a big deal?  You have completely ignored the publics opinion.  They are OUR pets.  What makes you think you would get to decide for the pets owner who should be allowed to treat THEIR pet.  Get your head outta your asses and reopen the comment period. All comments were 

I object to the current regulations in their  form and am requesting a new comment period. 

I strongly object to approval of these regulations without a provision that would require an owner give consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires a license. As a pet owner I want to know the qualifications of the people providing treatment to my pets. Without my consent, my assumption is the person is fully licensed to perform the task. Putting a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period and that public comments be taken into consideration. These are our pets and I don't consider it a bourden for a vet to have a conversation with the pet owner and inform them who is providing the services. I should be given the choice to allow a student to treat my pet.

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

I think it would be OBVIOUS that we as owners , seeking help for our animals , would want to keep them safe from further harm! Ask our permission for any procedures!!

It's smazing to me that you are ignoring the will of the public about this issue. NO ONE has the right to by-pass owner consent.  Your attitude is elitist and dangerous.  
Owner consent is a right, both for the owner and the animal. 

I object to the approval of regulations which allow a student to perform any task of treating an animal that otherwise requires a licenced practioner.  Past comment periods demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of those commenting were opposed unless full consent had been granted for the full student practice.  An office sign stating:  Sudents Working Here is not acceptable.  It is necessary, but not sufficient.  I subsequently request that the process for a new comment period begin again.  

PLEASE put a HOLD on any and all student practice upon any animal without professional school supervision, DIRECT constant supervision by qualified veterinarian or upper level professional veterinary professor. NO PRACTICING ON OUR PETS BY UNSUPERVISED STUDENTS!!!!!!!!!! It isn't right!!!

Owner consent should be mandatory!  Please issue a new comment period.  Most pet owners are against these new regulations!

I strongly object to approval of your regulation, without a requirement for owner consent for students performance of any task which ordinarily requires a license.  The public was ignored in the last comment period and 74 out of 94 comments said clearly that they were opposed to students working on their animals unless full consent  was required for any students to practice on their animals.  28 explicitely said that a sign in the Vets. office or anywhere, stating "Students Work Here" was unacceptable.  I request that the process begin again, with another Comment Period, and this time please pay attention to the publics wishes.  After all, these are our Animal Children you are planning to let someone with little knowledge practice on.  Please, people love their animals or they wouldn't spend the money to have them treated.  Thank you for listening and please follow up with our request.  Most Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Antonia & Andrew Chianis

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.s text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

We are happy with our experienced and communicative veterinarian. If she asked our consent for a vet student to examine or possibly treat one of our pets under her supervision, most likely I would agree. However, not to be asked, much less directly notified, would cause me to question her judgement and lose the trust that has grown over several years. 

The board ignored the public when they again stipulated minimal notice to animal owners whose pets could be treated by someone with about as much experience as I myself have. Why is it so difficult to accept  that CONSENT is the word here? Training in other professional fields---even those not associated with life-and-death situations---requires notice and/or consent from patients and clients. Look at social work or physical therapy for examples. One wonders what, aside from indifference to, or contempt for, public opinion, keeps the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine from following such standard practice.

Therefore, I request a new comment period on this matter.

I am asking you for a new comment period.

No regulations should permit a first,second or third yr. student to operate on our aminals and there should be approval from the owner before a forth year is permited. A vet sould be ovserving that student at all times to make sure everything was done correctly or if something does go wrong a vet is there to step right in and take over.

Life is fragile, treat it as so. They are members of our family.

If you that make these decisions can't understand how we feel as well as our animals, you should not be in the position you are in !!!!!!

Restart the comment period regarding student vets operating on animals without supervision.

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure.  The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice.  28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable.  I request that the process begin again, with another comment period.  And this time, pay attention to the public!  These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

I object to the approval of measures that foster lack of transparency in the care provided to our pets.  Wherever students are attending animal companions in a veterinary clinic/hospital setting, there should be clear communication about it and a pre-requisite of consent before any procedure is undertaken.

I strongly object to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. No veterinary student should be allowed to perform any unsupervised medical treatment on an animal without written permission by the owner. The public was ignored in the last comment period. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! 

As the mother of four wonderful animals, two dogs and two cats, I am writing to express my objection to allowing first year veterinary students to practice on animals.  With only one year of experience, they do not have the necessary qualifications to practice.  A first year doctor wouldn't be allowed to practice on human patients, neither should a first year veterinary student.  I strongly urge you to reconsider this decision and extend the period for comments.

I object to students being able to practice on companion animals without the human owners' consent.  Start another comment session so people can voice their objections to this.  Pet owners need to be informed that their animals are being surgically operated on by students as early as their first year, unsupervised. 

Thank you.

I couldn't be more appalled to learn that vet students are performing procedures without supervision  and without the written consent of the animals' owners.  I was further appalled to be made aware that past efforts to address the issues involved went ignored.  A new comment period needs to be opened and serious consideration given to addressing all the concerns being raised by myself and others.    

As an oner of both cats and dogs for the past 48 years, I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice

To Whom It Concerns: I object to Your current regulations and respectfully request a new comment period. Thank You for reading this. Sincerely, Donald R. Goppert.

I object to the approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily  requires licensure.   You ignored the public in the last comment period.  The vast majority of those who commented said that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice.  Many explicitly said that a sign in the office saying "students working here" is unacceptable.  I request that the process begin again with  another comment period.  This time, please pay attention to the public!   These are our animals you are planning to let students treat.

I strongly opppose veterinary students working on animals without the consent and/or knowledge of the pet parents. I find it hard to understand how this can be considered good medicine.. and I have personal experience with a student working on my pet, that nearly killed him. I took my dog to the emergency vet because he was unable to breathe and had bubbles of blood coming out of his mouth. The "vet" that was assigned to us didn't have a clue what was wrong but pretended that she did. I found out later that she was a student. She did many unnecessary tests on my dog, which sky rocketed the bill as well. I repeatedly asked what was wrong and she gave me a list of possiblities but clearly, didn't have a clue.  When  the shift changed happened, I spoke to a real vet. She asked me a few questions, and knew immediately what was going on, and saved my dog's life. The student obviously didn't have the knowledge or experience to handle this difficult situation, and had it not been for the real vet coming in, my dog would have died. It is irresponsible to allow these students to treat our pets. And of course there is always the issue of cost..the same cost is assigned to the procedures as when the regular vet does them, and in my case, as stated above, many of the procedures were unnecessary and/or inappropriate. Allowing students to treat, without supervision is not allowed in any other medical practice, and I know this because I am a medical professional. Do the right thing.. don't allow students to treat our pets.. only a licensed vet, or a student under close supervision should be allowed to practice medicine...or the quality of care and our animals, will suffer.

I strongly object to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. In the last round of public comments, 74 out of 94 paticipants said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. Why is the public being ignored??? I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

As a citizen and pet owner I cannot suport these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure.  I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. I remind you that regulations are not in place to protect veterianrians - they are there to protect innocent animals.  You can and must do better.

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice. 28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period. And this time, pay attention to the public! These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.

I absolutely cannot approve of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure. As a medical professional, I cannot undertand why the veterianry board has refused to listen to the public over the past several months. I request that the process begin again, with another comment period.  I am trusting that you will do the right thing in remembering that it is our innocnet pets whom you have been charged with protecting.

The purpose of the comment period is to survey taxpayer support.  The public support was clearly and overwhelmingly favorable for requiring specific owner consent for veterinary student practice.  I personally feel abused in having to repeat supportive comments which were clearly ignored in previous comment periods.  As a tax payer I am not impressed by empty compliance with perfunctory process.  It is past time to be responsible.  I support a new comment period.  I expect Virginia's Veterinary licensure and ethical practice standards  to be equal to the highest in our nation, not among the lowest. 

Clearly, the concerns of many people in Virginia are not being heard on this issue and I strongly request another comment period.  It is interesting to note that lawyers who are not yet licensed to practice law are required, if they want to represent clients while in their third year of law school (Known in the legal profession as the "Third Year Student Practice Rule") to obtain the written consent of their would be client before doing so.  Veterinary students should not have to do less when they want to be involved in the treatment of an animal but are not yet licensed.  Please consider addressing the very legitmate concerns of Virginians on this issue.  Thank you.

I object strongly to approval of these regulations without a requirement for owner consent for student performance of any task which ordinarily requires licensure.  The public was ignored in the last comment period. Out of 94 comments, 74 said clearly that they were opposed unless full consent was required for all student practice.  28 explicitly said that a sign in the office saying “students working here” is unacceptable.  I request that the process begin again, with another comment period.  And this time, pay attention to the public!  These are OUR animals you are planning to let students treat.