For more than 40 years, I have committed my life to veterinary medicine, having served on the faculties of leading universities and practicing as an equine veterinarian across the country. Since receiving my doctorate in veterinary medicine from Colorado State University in 1978, I’ve seen the critical importance of rigorous education, extensive hands-on experience and professional standards in protecting the health and safety of animals. This is why I am deeply alarmed by Proposition 129 — a dangerous measure that will lower the quality of veterinary care delivered in Colorado and put animals at risk every day.
Proposition 129 seeks to create a new role in veterinary care, a midlevel practitioner known as a Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA). The VPA has been irresponsibly compared to a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, but the comparison is fundamentally flawed. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants complete years of education and hands-on clinical training before they are trusted with patient care, and they do not perform surgery.
In stark contrast, Proposition 129 would allow VPAs to perform surgeries after completing just three semesters of fully online lecture — without any laboratory training — followed by a single semester of basic clinical skills and a brief practicum.
This amount of training is wholly inadequate. Becoming a licensed veterinarian requires years of intensive study, clinical rotations and real-world experience, often including exposure to life-and-death situations. I am a board-certified veterinary surgeon and have performed countless surgeries throughout my career and can say from long experience that even the most routine procedures can become complex in a matter of moments. Emergencies and complications are a reality in veterinary medicine, and only those with the comprehensive training a veterinarian receives are equipped to handle these situations effectively.
Proposition 129 would place your animal’s well-being in the hands of individuals who simply do not have the depth of knowledge or experience to manage these complexities. There is also currently no licensure, no program accreditation and no national exam for this role to ensure and validate a VPA’s level of knowledge and skill.
Would you trust someone with a fraction of the necessary training to perform surgery on you or a family member? Of course not. Yet Proposition 129 would allow minimally trained VPAs to perform surgeries on your pets. This is unacceptable.
The motivation behind Proposition 129 is also concerning. This measure is designed to create a new, unnecessary job category that primarily benefits educational institutions and corporations, not students or animals. Colleges stand to profit by new tuition streams, only for students to graduate burdened by debt and limited job prospects. Meanwhile, animals and their owners will bear the consequences of this ill-conceived plan.
Rural communities, which Proposition 129 claims to support, will not benefit from this measure. Having worked in both rural and urban areas, I know the challenges some communities face in accessing veterinary care. However, lowering standards of care is not the answer. What rural areas need are meaningful incentives to attract fully trained veterinarians, not the introduction of a second-tier system that compromises animal safety, food safety and public health.
In addition to the direct risks to animals, Proposition 129 introduces significant liability concerns. Who will be held accountable when a surgery goes wrong under the care of a VPA? Veterinarians are bound by strict accountability and oversight, ensuring that we are responsible for every action taken in the care of animals. VPAs, however, would not be held to the same level of accountability. This is a recipe for disaster, and it is our animal patients that will suffer the most.
As a proud alumnus of Colorado State University, I am dismayed that my alma mater is supporting this misguided proposition. CSU has long been a leader in veterinary medicine, and it should be upholding the highest standards of veterinary care, not supporting a measure that threatens to erode decades of progress in our field.
Proposition 129 would rush underprepared individuals into roles for which they will not be equipped, putting animal health and safety at risk. It’s not just bad policy — it’s reckless and dangerous.
I urge the people of Colorado to stand up for the safety and well-being of our animals by voting no on Proposition 129. This measure is not a path to better care; it is a gamble with the lives of our pets, horses, livestock and other animals. Let’s protect the high standards of veterinary medicine and ensure that every animal receives the expert care they deserve.
Vote NO on Proposition 129.
Dr. Tracy Turner is president-elect of the American Association of Equine Practitioners and a CSU alum.
[Source: The Daily Sentinel 9 October 2024]