The change regarding owner consent is still insufficient. A notice posted in the office that students are working in that location is not the same as consent, and is not an adequate alternative to consent. Having worked for years in the organ and tissue procurement industry in Quality Assurance, I am well familiar with informed consent. It is unethical and unnecessary to pursue this course of inadequate information to pet owners, and effectively takes away our ability to withdraw consent, which will lead to feelings of helplessness and distrust towards your profession. I can only wonder, is that your intent, to not allow pet owners a reasonable opportunity for informed consent? Are you fully prepared for the ramifications: The bad press, the word of mouth to avoid practices using students (which will adversely affect the ability to place and train students as fewer and fewer practices are willing to chance the negative publicity and ulitimately negative impact on their profits)?

Veterinarians are not required to accept students into their offices for practical experience. If they choose to do so, they need to confirm that the owner understands the situation and agrees to the student’s involvement. ANY SITUATION IN WHICH A STUDENT WILL BE PERFORMING A TASK WHICH ORDINARILY REQUIRES LICENSURE MUST REQUIRE THE OWNER’S SPECIFIC CONSENT.

Without this change, I remain opposed to expanding the possibility of student preceptorships before the fourth year.