*Bad* vets.... *terrible* vets...

[bunnity]

Pandacinny, I think you have an important point about having credentialed technicians. I've been reading Veterinary Technician magazine (the kind techs at the shelter gave me a bunch of copies for summer reading) and I think the field is at an interesting transition point as far as education and licensing. Of course there are great techs who learned on the job, but there is something to be said for the formal schooling experience. I think it would be great if the field moved toward the human nursing model with licensed nurses with degrees, and then maybe a veterinary version of a CNA with minimal schooling to keep the field open for those without the money / time or those like us who just want experience in the field. That model might require a higher salary though to compensate for the schooling...

Anyway sorry this is probably the subject for another thread - it's just something I've been thinking about recently. I do wish that advocates for better care would offer solutions or start a foundation to fund CE for techs and vets or something - not just throw out paranoia and half truths that will only hurt animals in the long run.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nyanko]

Not to take away from that woman's case, but isn't insulin something that an owner can and routinely does administer him/herself at home? I mean I understand that the veterinarian and assistant in that case were exhibiting gross negligence and breaching her trust, and I feel for her, but the actual act of administering the insulin by the unlicensed, untrained person shouldn't break any laws, should it?

(disclaimer: I am dumb about laws)

 

[InfiniVet]

2 questions


1. What are the valid reasons to avoid genetically modified foods?

2. Which NSAID was used re: parvo outbreak in puppies? I would have hoped that the vet used a Cox-2 selective but it sounds like the vet used Aspirin??

 

[Pandacinny]

Nyanko, I think that's something that has to do with the practice act in each individual state. In MD, technicians (licensed or not) aren't supposed to give medications unless they're under some sort of supervision by a vet, but the definition of supervision isn't something that's clear to me (I'm not all that familiar with the vet's portion of the practice act, more so with the rules governing techs.)

As far as medicating your own pets, you can basically do whatever you want to your own animals (unless it falls under animal cruelty statutes.) Once you're doing things to other people's animals, then the practice act starts to apply.

 

[InanOven]

based on some research i did for a term paper a few years ago i would say that there aren't bad health effects from GMO foodstuffs (unless some idiot were to add in a commonly allergenic protein from peanuts or something-but it's strictly regulated so that would probably never happen)

I do however wonder about negative effects it could have on plant agriculture. pollen drift of GMO to nearby operations, making non-reproducing varieties and patenting and selling the seeds, out-competition of indigenous or non-engineered plants. Mostly i just worry about the companies doing it getting greedy and exploiting farmers at cost to the farmer and consumer.

 

[Doxorubicin]

Why preach about getting good care for your dog when you look like Cruella de Vil?...

 

[Pandacinny]

Bunnity, I agree with you, but the problem comes into the economics of the practice. Whenever you make the argument for licensure, you hear about vets saying they can't afford licensed techs and would be run out of business. You also get experienced unlicensed techs saying things like "I can do ANYTHING and I was trained on the job, but a newly graduated RVT I met didn't even know how to draw blood!"

I think the law should at least make the wording distinguishable. How many owners know the difference between "Hi, I'm Pandacinny and I'm the practice's vet tech" and "Hi, I'm Pandacinny and I'm the practice's registered veterinary technician?" I think only licensed people should be able to be called techs (or whatever terminology you want to use) and unlicensed people, regardless of experience, should be called something else that doesn't sound pretty much exactly the same to the average client (like "assistants.") I think the distinction is important because licensed technicians have been through school or at least passed a licensing examination testing their knowledge, so we know they have some sort of baseline. They also have a license that can be called into question if they screw up, so owners have recourse if something happens at the fault of an RVT/LVT/CVT.

 

[bunnity]

Bunnity, I agree with you, but the problem comes into the economics of the practice. Whenever you make the argument for licensure, you hear about vets saying they can't afford licensed techs and would be run out of business. You also get experienced unlicensed techs saying things like "I can do ANYTHING and I was trained on the job, but a newly graduated RVT I met didn't even know how to draw blood!"

I think the law should at least make the wording distinguishable. How many owners know the difference between "Hi, I'm Pandacinny and I'm the practice's vet tech" and "Hi, I'm Pandacinny and I'm the practice's registered veterinary technician?" I think only licensed people should be able to be called techs (or whatever terminology you want to use) and unlicensed people, regardless of experience, should be called something else that doesn't sound pretty much exactly the same to the average client (like "assistants.") I think the distinction is important because licensed technicians have been through school or at least passed a licensing examination testing their knowledge, so we know they have some sort of baseline. They also have a license that can be called into question if they screw up, so owners have recourse if something happens at the fault of an RVT/LVT/CVT.

Yeah there would definitely be issues with having to pay licensed techs more. It would be nice if practices could afford to pay certified techs the same as nurses make... and it would be nice if vets made as much as doctors. And also if I had a pink unicorn.

... I do like the idea of calling licensed techs RVN's (registered veterinary nurse) because I think it gives them more credit for everything they do. Plus technician sounds more like someone who works on machines, and in human medicine is someone who runs medical machines. And I agree that anyone without a license should not be allowed to use the same title as those with licenses.

 

[primatevetjess]

... I do like the idea of calling licensed techs RVN's (registered veterinary nurse) because I think it gives them more credit for everything they do. Plus technician sounds more like someone who works on machines, and in human medicine is someone who runs medical machines. And I agree that anyone without a license should not be allowed to use the same title as those with licenses.

Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately, the American Nursing Association threw a fit when that was proposed. From Wikipedia: "In most anglophonic countries outside North America veterinary technicians are known as Veterinary Nurses (VNs). The American Nursing Association and some state nursing associations have claimed proprietary rights to the term "nurse", thus it is not used as a credential for veterinary personnel in North America."

Which is ridiculous, because vet techs ARE nurses, just for animals instead of people.

 

[HopefulAg]

How can they claim the rights to the word 'nurse'? It's not like it's a trade mark or anything...it's just a word lol.

That's it, I'm claiming the rights to 'waffle'! No one else can use that word without my consent!

 

[bunnity]

That's it, I'm claiming the rights to 'waffle'! No one else can use that word without my consent!

 

[rileyroo]

How can they claim the rights to the word 'nurse'? It's not like it's a trade mark or anything...it's just a word lol.

That's it, I'm claiming the rights to 'waffle'! No one else can use that word without my consent!

not even if i'm a registered waffle? you're claiming my career title?

 

[HopefulAg]

not even if i'm a registered waffle? you're claiming my career title?

You bet. You can call yourself pancake, or perhaps omelette, but I've proprietary rights to waffle.

 

[bakaduin]

Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately, the American Nursing Association threw a fit when that was proposed. From Wikipedia: "In most anglophonic countries outside North America veterinary technicians are known as Veterinary Nurses (VNs). The American Nursing Association and some state nursing associations have claimed proprietary rights to the term "nurse", thus it is not used as a credential for veterinary personnel in North America."

Which is ridiculous, because vet techs ARE nurses, just for animals instead of people.

I apologize in advance to everyone on the board for using the B word but Banfield terms there "techs", PetNurses.

 

[StealthDog]

I don't know if there's any studies about the administration of an NSAID inhibiting post-vaccine immune stimulation, but I know the speaker mentioned that they have problems in human med with people taking ibuprofen/tylenol/etc right after getting a flu shot to keep their arms from getting sore, but then they don't generate as strong of an immune response as they otherwise would have...

Which NSAID was used re: parvo outbreak in puppies? I would have hoped that the vet used a Cox-2 selective but it sounds like the vet used Aspirin??

Not sure what was used- although I'm not sure why you think it sounds like this vet was using aspirin?

 

[sassyfras]

based on some research i did for a term paper a few years ago i would say that there aren't bad health effects from GMO foodstuffs (unless some idiot were to add in a commonly allergenic protein from peanuts or something-but it's strictly regulated so that would probably never happen)

I do however wonder about negative effects it could have on plant agriculture. pollen drift of GMO to nearby operations, making non-reproducing varieties and patenting and selling the seeds, out-competition of indigenous or non-engineered plants. Mostly i just worry about the companies doing it getting greedy and exploiting farmers at cost to the farmer and consumer.

This is the reason I try to avoid GMOs. There have been several cases of farmers being sued because their fields were contaminated with GMO genes as a result of pollen drift. It seems really unfair because there's no way they can keep pollen from other fields from crossing with their crops. For me, it's about farmers being able to choose what to plant. Also, I worry that certain round-up ready crops may out-cross with wild relatives and confer such resistance on them. This could be ecologically disastrous as round-up is the primary method restoration ecologists use to remove mass herbacious weed infestations. This isn't to say that I believe GMOs should be avoided at all costs, but that it's not a black and white issue. There are reasons to avoid them as well as reasons to use them.

Jessica

ETA: Sorry for the thread drift!

 

[sofficat]

Yeah there would definitely be issues with having to pay licensed techs more. It would be nice if practices could afford to pay certified techs the same as nurses make... and it would be nice if vets made as much as doctors. And also if I had a pink unicorn.

Too bad many nurses make the same, if not more than many veterinarians!!