Karen McCormick: Colorado Proposition 129 will not help animals

For 40 years as a veterinarian, compassionate animal care has been my calling. As a state representative, we have explored the idea of a Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA), in Proposition 129, for three years. After hundreds of hours researching, listening to experts, veterinary economists, the FDA, the USDA, universities, accreditation teams, veterinary liability providers, professional organizations of veterinarians and veterinary technicians, shelters, practice owners, rural folks and animal lovers everywhere, we heard serious safety concerns and barriers, concluding a VPA would be unable to truly help the animals we love.

Proposition 129 is in front of voters using the analogy of the human PA. We have seen the proposed VPA curriculum and that analogy is far from accurate. A VPA would be dangerously undertrained. VPA education would be 75% online, totaling only four semesters, with little hands-on learning and then a brief internship. Human PAs require three years of school plus thousands of in-person clinical hours with actual patients. Human PAs do not perform surgery. VPAs would be practicing veterinary medicine, including surgery, without competency measures to ensure consumer protection, putting animals and the public in harm’s way. This proposal is not comparable to what licensed physician’s assistants complete before practicing. Not even close.

Honestly, does it make any sense at all to create a new medical position by way of a ballot initiative? Circumventing careful in-depth analysis with input from experts and all who work so hard to help animals? On that point alone we should oppose. But let’s look further.

Click here to view the full article.