I'm currently considering a career in optometry, but I was just wondering how optometrists are viewed in the healthcare industry? Are they seen as integral parts of healthcare or are they seen as people who didn't get accepted to med. school? Also, how hard is it to get accepted to opt. school?

It really depends on who you talk to. Most patients I've seen in the doctor's offices I've worked in really respect the doctors and wouldn't see any reason not to respect them. If you talk to some ophthalmologists, (not all mind you but some) we're infringing on their rights of "their" profession. I've only heard of ONE person in my current class who even APPLIED to med school. Most of my entire class (myself included) is there because optometry is what they want to do and ALL they want to do. OD's area allowed to bill medicare and medicaid now so even the national govt sees them as primary eye care providers. (which is what they are)

As far as getting into OD school, the average GPA's for the seventeen schools vary. The average GPA of an optometry student it usually around 3.3 or 3.4. Many schools (like med schools) won't even consider GPA's under 3.0. The entrance exam for optometry school is the OAT and the average score for that for all schools is around 330. (scaled from 200-400)

Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. :D

Just curious, what is an optometrists salary range? :D

It varies. Right out of school you can make anywhere from about 60 - 100,000. (usually getting more for corporate) But, the real money earning potential comes in owning your own place. That's the only way you can reliably make 6 figure salaries. But, nothing's set in stone and it does vary from region to region.

It's one of those careers where if you're in it for the money you can be really happy or sorely disappointed. Only go into optometry if you love it and if it's one of the only things you can see yourself doing. Like medicine, if you're doing it just for the paycheck.. you're in it for the wrong reasons.

Thanks for the info; I'm interested in it too! Is the training similar to medical school--four years and a residency? What undergrad science classes are necessary to get into an opt. school? Thanks for any info!

The training is similar to med school in some respects. You got four years, but you only do a residency if you want to. (most don't) Residency is usually only one year if you do do one.. and like I said, most people don't do it.

The curriculum in school is set up where you take two years of basic sciences [optics, vision science, human anatomy (yes, gross lab), physiology, etc. ] The curriculum varies slightly from school to school, but the basics are the same. After your second year you take part I of the national board exam. (again, just like med school) Your third year is usually half clinic oriented (working directly with patients) and half lecture. Your fourth year is where you do your clinic extern ships. You'll also spend the summers between your second and third year in school. (again varies from school to school)

Requirements vary by school so definitely go to the website of OD school's you're interested in and check out different requirements. But here is the list from UHCO (where I go)

Gen Chem I and II (8 hours)
Microbiology (4 hours)
Organic I (4 hours) although, you'll need both to do well on the OAT
Biology (8 Hours)
Biochemistry (3 hours)
Human Anatomy (4 hours)
Psychology (3 hours)
Statistics (3 hours)
Human/Animal Physiology (4 hours)
College Math (3 hours)
Calculus (3 hours)
Physics (8 hours)
English (didn't see it on the list, but I'm almost postitive it's on the application.. if not for UHCO than almost every other school of optometry requires college english)

There's the info I dug up. Hope this helps guys.. and let me know if you have any other questions. Back to studying! ;)

personal antidote with no factual basis --

I recently had a big eye ordeal with my three year old and had an opportunity to see both sides of the fence in action.

I agree with cpw that most people don't really know the difference.

The optometrists was WAY glad she chose her route, as it was shorter and was very happy in her practice. She was also much less stressed out than the opthamologist we saw. But like cpw said, she knew what she wanted, and I think equally important, what she didn't.

Again, personal antidote with no factual basis. Take it for what it is.

mj

I really don't think it is an issue with most ophthalmologists. I mean, ODs due serve a purpose albeit a limited one in health care. However, it is very annoying when the OD profession continually tries to lobby each year to expand the scope of their practice beyond what they are capable of doing. I think this is wrong both professionally and ethically as well. As for the salary range for ophthalmology..the spectrum is huge..anwhere from 200k-15mil...

I love when you guys make comments on the training of other professionals. Who are you to say what group is qualified to perform certain procedures and who is not? Have you been to OD school, have you sat in on the lectures, have you been graduated from a OD school? Please state your qualification that give you the right to be a expert on OD scope of practice and what they are train to do and not trained to do?

EXACTLY! We're trained to do things WAY beyond the scope of practice we're limited to. OD's care for the ENTIRE visual system. If you saw my curriculum and what we go through to get our licenses.. you would in no way think we were underqualified.

OD's are in no way "limited" in our purpose of health care. We are to the visual system what the dentists are to teeth. There's a difference between the dentist (your primary care tooth provider) and your oral surgeon. Just like there's a difference between your optometrist (primary care eye care provider) and your ophthalmologist. The only ones who usually think we "have no purpose" are the ophthalmologists who are afraid of us stepping on their overly inflated egos.

OD's lobby to expand their scope of practice into areas WE'RE ALREADY TRAINED TO DO!! It most cases we're just not allowed to yet according to state law. By the end of my fourth year if I take the appropriate classes I am trained to do various laser surgeries, treat glaucoma, vision therapy, diagnose various systemic (yes, i said systemic) disorders. I'm in now way implying we need to do as much as an ophthalmolgist there is an area for surgical specialization, but the OD scope of practice deserves to be expanded to encompass all the ares we're trained in to serve the community. In some areas, the OD is the only health care some people receive.

Amen cpw....amen.

I can tell you all that I have been in OD school for all of about TWO days now and I am VERY impressed by what I will be trained to do in 4 yrs. I mean, I have a father who is an optometrist and know several ODs and didnt even realize how intense and detailed their training is! For anyone to blindly (no pun intended) claim to understand an ODs scope of practice, without ever having studied the OD curriculum is ridiculous.

I agree with cpw that most people would be shocked if they saw what we will be doing for the next 4 yrs. Again, Ive been here 2 days and I can tell you that I am only MORE sure that this is a GREAT profession! :D :D :D :D :D

Well, I'm a third year medical student planning on going into ophthalmology. Furthermore, my father is also an ophthalmologist fellowship trained in retina-vitreous surgery. Ophthalmology is a surgical specialty dealing with the eyes. The audacity of certain ODs who "think" they are qualified to do eye surgery without going through a ophthalmology(surgical) residency is ridiculous. No surgery is minor. Any surgery has some risks and not receiving the adequate training and volume of surgical experience is simply a recipe of disaster for the patient and in this case "doctor." What kind of training will you possibly receive during OD school will qualify you to perform laser eye surgery. The last time I checked only a handful of states even allow ODs to perfrom them and the overwhelming majority don't. Why? They are not confident in their skills. Why? They are NOT surgeons. They are not even medical doctors. Do you expect me to believe that you will receive the same extent of training and volume of surgical procedures as that of an ophthalmology resident who has already completed medical school and a one year internship prior to even starting residency. If you still feel confident about cutting eyes for a living be my guest. I hope you have a good malpractice lawyer. There is definitely a hierarchy within the medical profession. Traditionally ophthalmology is considered one of the most competitive specialties in medicine to obtain as a medical student. So asking an ophthalmologist how they feel about ODs is like asking a neurosurgeon or cardiothoracic surgeon how he feels about a general practitioner.

I said "certain" laser procedures. Geez, no need to get emotional here. i'm not saying i'm going to go open my own laser shop and start competing with OMD's. I said there are certain basic procedures that we can learn in school. I'm not even sure which ones yet.. so me arguing about being qualified to do them here is kind of a mute point at the moment. I'll know more in a few years. I never claimed to want to take over either. I'm happy being a primary care giver. I'm sure many family practictioners are as well. You should appreciate them.. where in the hell do you think your referrals are going to come from ???! ;)

Kundun, I am not a optometry student, but my whole point was you make uneducated assumptions. I dont think OD strive to do complicated surgeries, but clearly they are just as qualified as other docs. 4 years of study with a concentration on mainly the eyes speaks for itself.
Dont be so nieve, the reason the scope of practice is limited in most states is not because of qualification, it is because the medical lobby is very powerful and can stop OD legislation before it gets started.
I know medical education is tough(you are preaching to the choir), how can you compare it to OD education if you have not experienced both not to mention they are two different forms of education. All I am trying to say is open your mind and realize every profession has its purpose and medical education is not the end all be all.

thank you! that's almost exactly what I was trying to say.. you just put it better! ;)

I disagree with you. Nothing you say will change my mind. I guess will agree to disagree. Professional etiquette prevents individuals of higher status and training to "look down" upon others. However, believe me...it does exist...If you tell me it doesn't...well, then you are the naive one...perhaps you should look that word up before you use it...that way you'd know how to spell it...nieve means snow in spanish, idiota

Kundun-

practice what you preach. your spelling of "etiquette" was rather amusing.

You are right, we will agree to disagree. I dont want to debate with someone who has to resort to personal attacks. "Professional etituquette prevents individuals of higher status and training to "look down" upon others. However, believe me...it does exist...If you tell me it doesn't...well, then you are the naive one...perhaps you should look that word up before you use it...that way you'd know how to spell it...nieve means snow in spanish, idiota “, from this statement it is obvious ego has a lot to do with your views so its not worth even continuing this conversation.
Good luck

but by merely making the statement of "looking down" whether you disclaimer it or not.. the statement is made you feel like you're ABOVE OD's. Granted your training is more extensive IN SURGICAL PROCEDURES .. OD's have much more intensive training in vision therapy. But, I'm not even going to debate this with YOU until you MATCH IN OPHTHALMOLOGY. :p

Kundun, you really embarrased you're self with your last post huh :eek:

Embarrassed about my last post? No, not at all...I posted exactly what was on my mind...That is exactly how I feel about the optometry profession...Being around eye surgeons all of my life, I can tell you very bluntly that the vast majority of ophthalmologists don't consider ODs as peers but refer to them kindly as professional "colleagues."

cpw, you might as well have this debate with me now...let's just say my chances of matching into ophtho are about as good as it gets, if you know what I mean...my father practiced for 20 years with the surgeon who is currently the program director of the program I'm interested in...I also have very strong ties to the area...Finally, I plan on practicing with this surgeon after I finish my training...therefore, for all intents and purposes, my space in that program is guaranteed.

Ok...let me get this straight here...

Most OMD's refer to us as being "Professional Collegues"...what is wrong with that unless you are implying by tone, that you have something much less complementary in mind, but would be unprofessional to speak?

I don't see what the trouble with having the three O's work together. Each speciality has it's scope, some areas overlapping some not.
Why is it you are so concerned with ODs? Do you feel that patients don't receive adequate care from them? Do you feel that ODs are robbing you from the extra money you receive from regular exams, billing patients a $100 for the same exams we give for $50? Just how is it that we have infringed upon your profession? Or is it cause ODs are tainted by that retail aspect of having dispensaries and making money from the sale of and not just the prescribing of correction.

I assume your father is in a busy practice. Do OMDs really want to spend an extra 40 hours a week doing regular exams? Isn't this why many OMD offices hire OD's to do this for them? Heck even those specializing in surgical aspects hire ODs or comanage patients with ODs? Why is this?

I totally agree that Optometry isn't ready for most surgical applications. Heck even lasik isn't nearly as "perfected" as what most surgeons would like for you to believe, and personally I don't want to deal with the Malpractice that is currently running rampant in that arena anyway. Even though this technique is one that supposedly has a certian set of clearly defined parameters in who is a candidate and a set technique in how to perform it. Anyone read about the investigations goin on with the Lasik Vision Institute???

Do you always see a specialist? At the first sign of a headache, do you head to the neurologist..or heck a neurosurgeon? DO you always go to an Oral Surgeon instead of a dentist since they have an MD where as a Dentist does not? OOOh....do you look down upon nurse practicioners or even regular nurses cause they haven't gone through the same insane hell you went through to become a MD?

I certainly think there is enough room in the health profession for all three of the O's. I thought it made sense to view the Optometrist as a primary care provider, the Ophthamologist as the specialist/surgical, and the optician as the one who makes the most out of the correction prescribed. Or am I wrong and most everyone wants everything for themselves?

I know several opticians and Ophthamologists who look down upon Optometry cause we "sell" patients their correction. Therefore our ethics must come into question, we changed the rx by .25 cyl in order to justify them buying a new pair of glasses. Or tricking them into buying something they don't need. And while I am sure their might be one or two out there who do this, the majority do not. The same as the majority of doctor's weren't prescribing meds just to have their pharmacy make money from the sale of the drugs. (Back when doctors could have their own pharmacies on site) Though I do know many physicians do get kick backs from drug companies for prescribing certain meds...
Is it unethical for OMDs to have dispensaries or to recommend a non medically necessary procedure such as lasik for their own personal finaincial gain?

Please explain to me why ODs are lesser individuals or in the wrong career choice. I don't mean in financial terms either. For some of us, that isn't the main consideration....

Cassandra

professional collegue works for me !

Cassandra, very well said! I was starting to wonder where you were. :)

Kundun, I'm not even going to debate "daddy" and his friends getting you a spot in the match.

Honestly, it is sheer ignorance when somone has pre- despositions about a proffesion. I will be going to medical school, but I still think that all health careers are a vital ingredient to proper healthcare service..be it DO.. MD..OD RN..RA..DPM.and every otehr initial out there. Simply by accepting each profession without downgrading them is called respect. WHo is an MD to put down a OD and vice versa. If we all do our jobs with 100 dedication the actions and motives will speak for themselves and we will all be one happy health care unit! :)

hmm....Did we scare him away???

Cassandra

Good point dude7, just because you don't want to be an OD doesn't mean they don't have value. I don't want to be an MD, but that doesn't mean I'm going to slam every MD I see and tell them their careers don't have merit. The health professions are supposed to work togther, espeically in light of recent events in the US.

Originally posted by kundun:
<STRONG>Well, I'm a third year medical student planning on going into ophthalmology. Furthermore, my father is also an ophthalmologist fellowship trained in retina-vitreous surgery. Ophthalmology is a surgical specialty dealing with the eyes. The audacity of certain ODs who "think" they are qualified to do eye surgery without going through a ophthalmology(surgical) residency is ridiculous. No surgery is minor. Any surgery has some risks and not receiving the adequate training and volume of surgical experience is simply a recipe of disaster for the patient and in this case "doctor." What kind of training will you possibly receive during OD school will qualify you to perform laser eye surgery. The last time I checked only a handful of states even allow ODs to perfrom them and the overwhelming majority don't. Why? They are not confident in their skills. Why? They are NOT surgeons. They are not even medical doctors. Do you expect me to believe that you will receive the same extent of training and volume of surgical procedures as that of an ophthalmology resident who has already completed medical school and a one year internship prior to even starting residency. If you still feel confident about cutting eyes for a living be my guest. I hope you have a good malpractice lawyer. There is definitely a hierarchy within the medical profession. Traditionally ophthalmology is considered one of the most competitive specialties in medicine to obtain as a medical student. So asking an ophthalmologist how they feel about ODs is like asking a neurosurgeon or cardiothoracic surgeon how he feels about a general practitioner.</STRONG>

These surgeons don't look down on Gp's. In fact I had a internist that berated almost every surgeon he sent me to. Also, the gp's refer their patients to these surgeons.

kundun,

I am not an OD student, I am a DDS student graduating this year. As an OD or DDS student we are qualified to work when we graduate. MD students don't seem to be competent to practice once they graduate, thats why they have residencies. What is wrong with an OD doing simple surgeries provided they get the training. I am going to do extractions yet not go to oral surgery training; however, I would never do a facial reconstruction. Bottom line is OD's should be given the opportunity to practice what they feel competent in and be held at the same standard as a specialist. In dentistry, a dentist can practice any specialty and is held to the same standards as a specialist.

Another MD vs. allied health careers arguement!

I am currently doing a month long optho rotation and they complain about the optometry guys all day. I think a good percentage of the optho ansgt is territory and they should get over it , but I agree kundun also to a certain degree on his assessment.

If an optometrist wants to do surgery, GO TO MED SCHOOL. Dont give me the arguement about the optometry curriculum. I know how they are trained, and they are well trained for what they do. But even minor procedures have complications, and I am sorry ...if you cannot handle the complications (no matter how rare), then you should not be doing the surgery.

I respect optometrists, but I have seen some the proposals of the optometry lobby and some of it is ridiculous.

Cheers,

Soupbone
UASOM MS-IV

Hi there,
I'm an orthopaedic surgeon, thank god for OD's. It's just like patients going to me for OA or RA. I'm the second line of care. Some people just don't see the value of having a PEER help you out.

Soupbone,

You say you know how optometrist's are trained, but do you really? I doubt it. I just started OD school, I have an OD as a father, and a MD SURGEON as a brother and I HAD NO IDEA the curriculum was going to be the way it is. Im amazed. So, how is it that you know what its like? Unless you went through it YOURSELF I doubt you do.

So, I dont ask you to prove yourself to demean you, but only to make sure you REALLY do understand what I will be going through in the next 4 yrs. I have NO DOUBT youd be amazed if you really did know! (which is precisely why I think that maybe you have no idea).

Now Im not saying that ODs should be doing surgery. Certainly not. HOWEVER, the area of REFRACTIVE surgery is another story, perhaps, since any MD or OD will admit that ODS are, in fact, REFRACTIVE SPECIALISTS. That is what they do, for goodness sakes. So why not perform refractive surgery? If you knew the curriculum youd know they are competent as hell.

Your argument seems to be that ODs would not be able to fix "complications" of refractive surgery if something went wrong. Why then are ODs all over the country doing pre and post operative care for LASIK patients? This is where a knowledge of the curriculum would prove you wrong.

Again, I am really not trying to start a battle. I just hope that you have educated yourself on the CURRENT differences between med-school and OD-school before making comments.
:cool:

abs1,

Fair enuff question...

Besides having dated an optometry student for a good period of time...plus the OD students take some of their basic science courses in same building with us. They also take a section of Neuroscience with us 1st year. So I have a pretty good idea of what your training is about.

I am not dogging optometrists. If you reread my post, I respect the profession; but I still have reservations about what the OD lobby wants in scope.

Soupbone
UASOM MSIV

My apologies for doubting you. Though all opt schools are diff, (some very different!)it sounds like you do have an idea about the curriculum. :cool:

My feeling is that ODs scope of practice should extend to and be limited to what they are trained to do and are capable of within our health care system. As primary care providers, ODs should only perform procedures and tests that fit in the "primary care" category. Should they be able to reattach retinas? No way. Should they be able to prescribe drugs to help glaucoma. Absolutely (though they cant in all states). Should they be able to perform refractive correction with a laser?

I dont think this is an issue of CAN ODs perform this correction and the care that is involved. Its an issue of TURF. EYEMDs certainly dont want ODs to be able to do this procedure. Now that the price of cataract surgery has gone wayyyy down and become so easy the EYEMDs have turned to refractive surgery as their cash cow. (Now I am not attacking EYEMDs here, just making a factual pt.) I wouldnt want ODs getting in on this either if I were them. And I dont think ODs will perform this procedure for a long time. But I think they will someday. :D

Wow. Lots of bickering here... I just came fromt he MD/PT forum and notice a couple of the same players from the MD side -- instigators, if you will. Three points:

1) My girlfriend is in optometry school (SCO) and every time I go to visit her I end up sitting in on some of their classes. I just came from their path and pharm classes and I've gotta say -- I'm more than impressed. They cover a large portion of what we covered and are definitely (from looking at her old tests) responsible for learning a lot of it. I don't know how much of it they'll use in practice, but that's because of my ignorance, not becuase I doubt their clinical skills. Plus, I got to play with one of those PanOptic scopes... those are nice!

2) I've read over the AOA proposals and I've gotta admit that I find some of them a little extreme. BUT, I can understand optometrists wanting to expand their scope (no pun intended)... after all, they go through a lot of training. Of course, OMDs aren't gonna like that, just like GPs don't like PAs and Orthopods don't like PTs and nobody really likes podiatrists :)... but I think that if the two groups can reach a consensus it'll be possible to get ODs and MDs working together (like in most Lasik clinics) and give good clinical care while giving everyone something to do.

1) kundun, et al... you're giving us all a bad name. First of all, you're way too cocky for your own good. Have some respect for people that are going through 4 years of training and getting a doctorate. Secondly, PLEASE don't brag about the fact that the only reason that you're getting an optho residency is because you've got family connections. Do you think that makes you look good? Or just desperate and pitiful?

For the rest of you -- not all med students are like some the offensive ones you see here. Please don't judge us by their actions. Most of us (including, obviousbly, some of the posters here) just want what's best for our patients... and that almost always means a team effort.

well put aliraja!

well put aliraja!
I agree :)

Well, I'm glad I just spent the last 15 minutes reading this forum. My father is an OD so I like many of you, I know this topic pretty well. First off, the comments by our opthomology friend are very typical of that group of profesionals.

I spent from 1st grade until my Junior year of highschool wanting to be a OD like good old dad, then I changed and decided I wanted to be an Opthm. so I could expand my dad's practice. Well I'm now a JR in college and again thinking, maybe Opthm. isn't right either. This is because of the contempt so many of them hold for ODs. They think they should be the only eye care providers but at the same time, most of them have many OD working for them because most of them just want to do Lasik but not primary eyecare.

I'm not say they should do primary, that is the OD's job but since this true, they should respect the OD for the intergral part they play in healthcare. Again, where do referals come from?

I had thought that the "old school" look towards ODs had change in our generation but the comments made here have corrected my idealistic thoughts. This here has confirmed my fear of the fate of the eyecare industry. Most likely there will never be a truce drawn between these two great professions but forever a line separating them so to never unite as one and better this field of healthcare.

Wow, that was almost like a speech!

I agree that most MD/DO's do not feel the sameway as some of those posting here, but many do. I urge all those here to look past your own ideas of who is better but instead see that all fields of healthcare are here for the same goal, helping, healing,and protecting our patients. All work on differnet things but all are importent. Ever MD, DO, OD, DDS, DPM, DVM, PA, PT, RN, LPN, EMT, CNA, optition, hygenist, and everyone in between is important.

So inconclusion, GET OVER YOUR EGOS AND HELP EACH OTHER HEAL!!!!

I just thought I would share one more story with you. Like I said, my dad is an OD and he had friend, an OD, that signed up for a showing/conference about some lasik laser. He was the only OD there with a bunch of MDs. During the confrence a MD leaned over to the OD, unknowing he was an OD and sayed, "We better hope the ODs don't find out how easy this is."

Just thought I would share that.

Well, I'm going MD, but I would like to say: THANK THE LORD FOR OD's! There is a place and function for everyone in the health care system, and MD's cannot fulfill all of these functions. Besides, I hate all the physics of the eyes, so thank the LORD that someone loves it...

owcc16

Originally posted by owcc16:
<STRONG>Well, I'm going MD, but I would like to say: THANK THE LORD FOR OD's! There is a place and function for everyone in the health care system, and MD's cannot fulfill all of these functions. Besides, I hate all the physics of the eyes, so thank the LORD that someone loves it...

owcc16</STRONG>

And lots of physics there is too! Vision Science is killing me (and the rest of our class) Thanks for the votes of support from the MD community guys! :D

About the vision science- I'm suprised that it's as intense as it seems there- optics here at OSU isn't easy, but it's the class that everyone neglects until shortly before the exams- basically b/c the anatomy & physiology is so intense here- especially the anatomy. Very interesting.

Originally posted by TPMOH:
<STRONG>About the vision science- I'm suprised that it's as intense as it seems there- optics here at OSU isn't easy, but it's the class that everyone neglects until shortly before the exams- basically b/c the anatomy & physiology is so intense here- especially the anatomy. Very interesting.</STRONG>

Well, I don't think vision science would be so bad if they hadn't dorked with our schedule. The regular vision science prof had a triple bypass the week before orientation. So, we had five different profs lecture us on temporal aspects of vision, contrast senstivity, dark adaptation, etc. So, the exams were random since there were three people writing it and none of us did very well. Now, Dr pease is back and the lectures are so much easier to follow. They had to add vision science quizes to the lab curriculum to bring up our grades and make sure we really understood the material for boards and to pass the class. (it's been rather screwy for us this semester with the juggled schedule) But, we're making it.

Good luck with your exams! :D

To all optometrists and ophthalmologists, I'd just like to say that I think your both wrong and the eye care industry is the most backward aspect of the health care system. Now this critism has to affect optometrists and opticians (don't u at least agree that optometrists and opticians should be one and the same?) - because I realize that ophthalmologists have to deal with such complex issues and are so busy, it is hard to correct their ways. As for optometrists, they are doing the world a true diservice. As one of their primary job descriptions is to prescribe corrective lenses, I can guarentee you that the vast majority of optometrists around the world have never heard of Dr. Bates or his research - research that has never been truly disproven, and research I truly believe is hidden away from general optometrists and ophthalmologists by a few elite, money hungary companies that don't want to see their precious lens buisness go down. What is this research you ask, well the best way to learn about it is to read it - I'm not going to explain it to you because I can't do it justice. You have read books from beginning to end to truly understand it:

web page (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556433514/ref=pd_sim_books/104-0058288-0138300)

Now I sure don't mean to belittle optometrists and ophthalmologists but we are living in a time of free access to information - and so now is the time to correct our ways. I have personally been to two different third world countries - and seen hundreds of teens and adults of all ages spend the marjority of their time watching tv (stolen satellite signals), playing video games and computers (pirated cd's and stolen hardware), and reading dozens of smuggled computer manuals per week, and yet they have absolutly no myopia whatsoever. This theory (now this is critism towards ophthalmology) that because we are doing so much close up work in tis day and age as compared to our tribal history - myopia has been exacberated, is completly false. Instead its the glasses optometrists prescribe, and the refractive disgrace of a surgey ophthalmologists perform. Lasik is a mess, just go to surgicaleyes.com (and those are not a small minority of cases). Plus ophthalmologists don't even care to sit and think why vitreous and retinal tears/detachments are at an all time high in the developed world while ppl in the developing world are now equally addidicted to close up work. To do so would be to go against some very power lobbiests and self-serving corporate inflluenecs. Its time to stop arguing over minute, silly arguments like whether OD's are respected by OMDs, and instead, start concentrating and respecting the truth - something that seems to beyond the scope of both ophthalmology and optometry.

hmm..and you are interested in getting an OD/PhD? Why would you want to be associated with such a horrible field as optometry?

Please tell me that you have done more research than just reading the writings of one man. While his works may have never been disproven, more important is the fact his theory has never been proven either.

There are several people out there with various hypotheses, theories, etc that have never been disproven, does this make them all correct? Are we as L.Ron Hubbard proposes Aliens from another planet? Isn't science theory one where you have to prove something? Test it against a series of knowns and unknowns to validate it? To find out where it falls apart at? If it falls apart? It seems to me that it is still in that theory stage. Not science fact. And neither is the "side effect of civilization" theory a fact either. I will hand you that.. But I don't buy into what basically boils down to as "the you're not trying hard enough theory" or the "just relax" one.

There are very many people who aren't ODs/OMDs/opticians that would very much disagree with you. I can count numerous times when I have been thanked for doing someone a great service by fixing them up with glasses that enables them to see more clearly then without correction.

Maybe we demand more from our eyes? We want to see the fine print. We want to be able to distinguish the differences between different sets of lines or use that microscopic screw.

The company I work for has sent teams to third world countries for just about ten years now. At first it was one mission a year, now it is 10. These people thank us for providing this service. They line up for miles, and wait for days to get their glasses. They cry when they are finally given the chance to really see the leaves on the tree, and not just the branches.

While it is true that visual therapy, ie certain excercises, can help alievate the need for glasses, it certainly represents a small number of cases when compared to the large. I see it primarily with accomodation errors in grade school/junior high students. They are handed focusing activities and such, while making very limited use of "reading" glasses.

It is the ODs who primarily try to work within the confines of vision therapy. They are also the ones who seem to really want to work with low vision as well. For you to come on here and basically demean the very profession that most of here are striving for is very bold of you.

How long have you been dealing with optics? What background do you have to tell us what the gospel is? I have read some of his work before, and I have worked with ODs who have tried to use some of it for especially younger patients. Lets jsut say that the effectiveness was less than 50%

I still can not believe that you think that all the opticians, optometrists, and ophthamologists are out there more concerned about making a buck than truly helping mankind. Do you even know how optometry got started? Do you know when opticianry first began? Lets just say that it was way before the appearance of any frame or lens major manufacturer. Heck it was before we became a country...

If you think that modern optics is a big conspiracy to hold down the man, then maybe you oughta find a more noble profession to be intersted in.

Cassandra

Ps if I offend anyone I am sorry. It has been a bad day to say the least and this just was the last thing I needed to read tonight...

Cassandra :)

Digitized-
Now let me get this straight. You are saying that mypoia is some big conspiracy and truly doesn't exist and doesn't exist in some countries? I can't imagine that anyone with a single brain cell would ever believe such a thing. So before I give you the run through I'll give you the chance to explain what you mean. Please explain, I don't understand...of course I am myopic and the off-spring of an "evil" OD which might explain my confusion.

As far as OD's and opticians being the same. What the hell are you thinking. Unless you are a complete idiot you wouldn't say that. You do relize that and OD gets a BA or BS and then goes to 4 years of OD school. I'll do the math for you. That is 8 years! Now if you follow my thoughts here...that is the same as a dentist. So are you saying that hygenist and a DDS should be the same too. An optician is only a tech degree. How could you think that an OD and an optician should be the same. The only difference in years of education between OD and MD/DO is residence. Not to mention that OD's are now (for the last 20 years) trained medically. By this I mean they perscribe medications and do some minor surgeries. They don't just give glasses.

By the way, not all OD's and OMD's work for chain's and large companies. Many, in fact probably more per capita than MD/DO, are in private practice.

I'm done with this, it probably will fall on deaf ears anyway and since you are looking into an OD/PhD program you mostlikly know all this. As stated before: Why would you want to enter this discraceful field?

Basically the arguement that Dr. Bates puts up is that the majority of refraction errors and even organic problems like iritis and glaucoma are disorders due to a strained state. That all that is required to get rid of this is learning how to relax the muscles in the eye.

Current mainstream occular theory is that the crystaline lens changes its curvature in reference to the focal length. Accomodation error and presbyopia are what happens when the lens isn't functioning in this way. Myopia and hyperopia are caused by the size of the eye. If the length is too long, the image is produced infront of the retina instead of on it, causing trouble at the distance. So by using a concave lens, you cause the rays of light to diverge, placing the image on the retina again. In hyperopia, the length of the eye is too short, placing the image in back of the retina, so you would use a concave lens to converge the rays of light to place the image on the retina.

In Dr Bates research he claims this to be false. He claims that it is the muscles of the eye that control the focus. The obliques are instead responsible for accomodation. That abnormal function in the obliques is what is responsible for myopia, and the recti are responsible for hyperopia. That dysfunction in both is what causes astigmatism.

Since muscles outside the eye are controllable, then it is a matter of proper training that will indeed cure not compensate for refraction error.

In other words, you don't need glasses you just aren't trying hard enough to see.

So basically this guy goes through this series of case studies showing how people are much better off after they realize it is all under their control. he does this by showing how much worse off they could be by tricking their eyes into seeing worse. Primarily by changing where they focus at. (imagine that the myopic person could see better when the book was closer to her!) Anyway, you see most of us are centrally fixated and if we learned to relax and see the "big picture" quite literally we would all be able to go with out glasses or contacts forever...

It is an interesting read, but one that is very hard to believe. A lot of the research started in the early 1900's. The problem is that it doesn't explain a lot of things. Nor does it make perfect sense...Read the excerpts and see what I mean...

Cassandra :)

So Did I scare another one off? Man..I was really looking forward to a real debate. I guess I will have to save the bitch mode for work...(where it is really needed right now anyway)

better get over that hangup, kun. all the optometrists I have worked for loved the fact that their much-more-highly-trained Ophthalmologist colleagues had to suck up to them to get business.

[quote]Originally posted by rpames:
<strong>Digitized-
Now let me get this straight. You are saying that mypoia is some big conspiracy and truly doesn't exist and doesn't exist in some countries? I can't imagine that anyone with a single brain cell would ever believe such a thing. So before I give you the run through I'll give you the chance to explain what you mean. Please explain, I don't understand...of course I am myopic and the off-spring of an "evil" OD which might explain my confusion.

As far as OD's and opticians being the same. What the hell are you thinking. Unless you are a complete idiot you wouldn't say that. You do relize that and OD gets a BA or BS and then goes to 4 years of OD school. I'll do the math for you. That is 8 years! Now if you follow my thoughts here...that is the same as a dentist. So are you saying that hygenist and a DDS should be the same too. An optician is only a tech degree. How could you think that an OD and an optician should be the same. The only difference in years of education between OD and MD/DO is residence. Not to mention that OD's are now (for the last 20 years) trained medically. By this I mean they perscribe medications and do some minor surgeries. They don't just give glasses.

By the way, not all OD's and OMD's work for chain's and large companies. Many, in fact probably more per capita than MD/DO, are in private practice.

I'm done with this, it probably will fall on deaf ears anyway and since you are looking into an OD/PhD program you mostlikly know all this. As stated before: Why would you want to enter this discraceful field?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Wow, everone has issues. First off I am a 4th year med student going into general surgery and my father is a very well respected and extremely successful optometrist.

I have a different view point from most of you out there. I disagree with you "digitized" that the only difference between my training and yours is residency. It is extremely different. How many 110 hour weeks have you put in in your training (3rd or 4th year)? How many central lines have you placed? How many times did you get left alone to burn surgery while your attending had to leave emergently for a patient who was crashing? How many patients have you had die on you?

Our training is very different and rightfully should be. Now your basic sciences such as anatomy and pharmacology are probably very compareable. My point is not that you are not intillegent and well trained doctors, but rather we are all trained to serve different missions. Choose your battles wisely my friend. Proove how you are different, why you are different and how that makes you unique, purposeful, and great primary eye care physicians. Most of all treat your patients well and they will give you the respect you deserve by returning to your office.

Oh, by the way, the actual surgery involved in LASIK really is quite simple and very difficult to cause any life threatening emergencies. I am not saying I agree that optometrists should be doing it because I honestly think it should be handled by an ophthalmologist. However, the truth of the matter is that you could probably train a technician to do the actual procedure itself which is what usually happens anyway. It is the preop work up that really matters (and the Flap).

I haven't read these postings in months but I see Kundrum (Daddy's boy) is still a moron and making rediculous remarks. Perhaps ignorance breeds ignorance? Open your eyes Kundrum there is more to life than you have seen in your little sheltered ophthalmology upbringing. Perhaps you need to see a good optometrist to help you see.

I'll shut up now. I wish all my optometrist colleagues rewarding and successful careers. Celebrate diversity!!!!!!

Very interesting (and heated) debate. My two-cents:

The whole issue of giving optometrists the power to prescribe drugs/perform surgeries is mostly an issue of expanding the scope of their practice...which really means funneling more of that health care dollar towards them and away from OMD's.

What's a big reason that most people give for going into optometry? "It's not as stressful as medicine." Another big one is not having to deal with HMO's and the big health-care mess in the U.S.

So why the desire to expand the scope of the profession (which is a great one to go into...I count no less than 8 friends who are in optometry school as I type this email) when all it will do is, 1) create a lot of new stress for optometrists and 2) eventually bring HMO's into the game?

A big reason...money. Not the ONLY reason...but a very convincing one at that. I don't think there are many optometrists out there who would want to be paid the same as they are now while having to undergo an even more intensive training (and possibly a residency) and taking on more patients. It would interfere with a third big reason given by folks who go into optometry..."I want to have time for myself/hobbies/families/interests."

So in review, I don't think that optometrists are inferior to MDs in ability to perform a surgery...give someone enough training, they can do anything as well as someone else. But I believe that if optometrists do expand their practice the way that they want to would compromise a lot of the benefits of going into optometry in the first place.

I know people will disagree with me and spew some sort of venom...have at it. I'm a secure and confident enough person to know it's not a personal attack on my ability or intelligence.

God Bless America.

p.s. There was a previous poster on this thread (Big Poppa), I think a dental student who said something to the effect that the reason MDs go through residency is that we aren't competent once we graduate. That was the funniest thing I have ever read on this message board, and I've been reading this thing for a long time. Thanks Poppa...I needed that.

Well, I think its pretty obvious that one of the reasons that ODs would like to do surgery is because it would bring in a higher income. Heck, the reason some people chose MD over OD is for that very reason. But does everyone who goes to MD school do it for the $$? Of course not. Then maybe, just maybe, all the ODs that want to do some refractive surgery someday dont just want to do if for the $$? :confused: Of course $$ is an issue. It is an issue for everyone. I agree with you there. But its not always the ONLY issue.

I dont agree that people go into optometry to avoid managed care. Well maybe they do?? But if they do, they will be sad to see that optometry is very much a part of managed care and will only become more and more involved in it. But thats just a minor point.

And you are right that many pre-ODs go into the field because it allows more "personal" time outside of work. But I would argue that the reasons you go into a profession are not always the same as why you enjoy it once you are in it. Expanding their profession's scope of practice to an exciting new area just might outweigh many ODs love of "personal" time? ;)

So, I do partially agree with you. Id say there are three main reasons that ODs want to perform LASIK (in no particular order): 1. Its very profitable 2. Its very interesting 3. ODs, like MDs, want to deliver the best eyecare they can to their pts. You see, ODs know the little "secret" that LASIK is, in fact, an easy procedure. Thats the prob. ODs know they can do it, and MDs know they can to. Noone likes being told that they cant do something that they know they can. So ODs will fight for what they feel they KNOW THEY ARE CAPABLE OF. And EYEMDs are scared sh&*%less of them too, as is evident by EYEMDs many attempts to squash the ODs. Its as simple as that. :D

If anyone thinks optometry is not already affected by managed care, they are in for a big shock.

Most optometrists are dealing with this now. Hmm..Do I want to be in plan x. I currently can charge $65 for an exam and they only reimburse me for $40. Then again is has the potential to completely fill up my books..(make it up in volume)...Then there is also the people who will ONLY deal with those who are providers..

If they have a dispensary then it is even more involved in their day to day..Ok...I have a lagy here who wants progressive lenses. Normal charge for basic plastic is $189, Insurance will reimburse for $95. Upgrade to poly lenses, normal $50 discount $20. Frame $140, Insurance will pay $60 and patient will make up difference less 20% discount..

So now what would have been a $379 sale is one that is now $239, of which you only get $84 of it upfront. This is actually one of the more common plans I am basing it off of...

I work for one of the "evil empires" and we do at 40% of our work with managed care plans now. The doctor's offices I have worked at deals with at least that same amount as well...

So to say we might end up having to deal with it, is well.. A little too late..

But I do think this is one reason why Optometrists are interested in doing things such as Lasik..Something that can increase profitability for their practice.

Cassandra

My personal feeling is that no surgical procedure, no matter how "easy" it may be technically and in theory, is really easy when every factor is involved (side effects, complications, etc.). So many things can go wrong during a surgical procedure...to say it's "easy" is underestimating it. It's kind of like Goliath looking at David and thinking to himself, "Boy, this should be easy...".

abs1: Good, mature response to my post...however, I did emphasize that money, while a big reason, isn't the only reason why ODs would want to expand the scope of their profession. And I don't believe OMDs are trying to squash their OD colleagues...you have to look at it this way. If I felt that you were trying to invade my "turf", I'd be defensive and do everything I can to protect it...and if you were trying to claim what you believed to be rightfully yours, you would do everything you could to claim it.

If OMDs tried to prevent ODs from performing eye exams, you would do everything in your power to prevent that, wouldn't you? I know this sounds a bit unrealistic, but I think you get my point.

And while HMO's have infiltrated the field of optometry, the profession, for the most part (I believe) is still a cash-and-carry system. If you think it's bad now, just imagine if surgery became a full part of your profession. And let's not even mention how much your malpractice insurance would increase...

Let me ask y'all this question...if ODs were allowed to perform LASIK and other "easy" surgical procedures, would any of you be willing to undergo, say, a two-or-three year residency program right after optometry school? Or do you think it's even necessary for that much training in the first place?

Peace.

I don't think I'd want to do Lasik even if it was available to me. Surgery doesn't interest me and was one of the reason I went for optometry in the first place. I think there should be a one or two (maybe even three) year residency or EXTENSIVE CE program or requirement before OD's even think of performing surgeries. Granted, we go through some laser training here at UHCO, but I haven't gotten to that program yet, so I don't know the full scope of the training.

I think if you do start performing surgery, you're correct the malpratice insurance would sky rocket. There would also be the cost of the lasers, larger practices, etc. It would be EXTREMELY expensive to start up. And then if it does happen, you'd still have the OMD vs OD debate.. how many patients would go to an OD (no matter how expert and qualified they were ) when they could go to an MD x-number of years of residency trained "eye surgeon". I think we'd be at a disadvantage.

I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy primary care. And, as for the insurance managed care debate. In the private pracice I worked in out of the 15-18 patients we saw per day... I only remember ONE per day paying cash. The rest were almost ALL VSP. I think the only other major insurance I saw was Medical Eye Services. I think the Dr's I worked for were on more than twelve plans too. VSP dominated the market (at least in northern california) and most of this part of Texas from what I've seen. They reimbursed more than most plans too, from what I've seen. There were many plans our OD's were being courted by to sign up for and they just paid pitiful amounts per exam.
And almost nothing for materials. (frames/lenses)

I had no idea how much insurance companies have had an effect on optometry.

cpw, you hit the nail on the head about a lot of things...cost, desire, etc. I think those who do want to do surgery are in the minority. Many opts still do it because they want to help people, they are fascinated with the eye, and they want to live a semi-normal life outside of work. The money ain't bad either, but then again none of us future health professionals do it for the money...

Hey Cassandra, how are you? :o ) If someone thinks that going into optometry will spare them from managed care is sorely mistaken. In most practices, the practice that I work for included, at least 40% of the patients have some sort of vision plan which entices them to visit your office. (I think I pulled that figure from Optometric Management.) It has become a necessary evil really, and it's something which anyone going into medicine has to accept.

This brings up a question that I have for those who are in optometry school though; When you went to interview at your respective schools, did any of the interviewers ask your opinion of corporate optometry and managed care? From what I heard, IU doesn't usually ask anything in that area, but I didn't know if that was the case at other schools.

Thanks,
Nick

I interviewed at SUNY and Pacific and at neither school were those topics brought up. However, both interviews asked questions about what I see myself doing some time in the future. I think the question at Pacific's interview was "What would be your ideal practice setting?"

Like many posters (OD and OMD) have said, the way different health care professionals work together have been great for the patients so far. If this is true, then why do optometrists want to expand their fields and take away OMD's turfs? Most likely due to $$$.

There is truly no right and wrong answer to it. It all depends on whether you are an MD or an OD. MD's want to protect their territories and OD's want to protect theirs as well. And one of the previous posters made a good point. If OMD's decide to invade OD's turfs and become the sole persons capable of prescribing glasses and taking over all the primary care eye services, how would OD's react? no less vehemently than how OMD's are reacting now.

Another thing..... OD's feel that their training prepares them much more than what they are allowed to do under the LAW. Well, it sucks but that's the law. This is called reality. I mean, anyone with slight intelligence (3.0 college GPA) if forced to undergo 4 years of basic medical training (suppose somebody decided to create a separate "MD" degree program) can probably do what a GP can do. They are "qualified" (according to OD's argument). But should they actually practice primary care just like GP's??? Maybe. maybe not. But if the law says they can't, then they won't be allowed to. This is like the situation of PA's and NP's. PA's and NP's want to practice "medicine" independently of MD's. But if PA's, NP's and OD's all get their wishes, then before we know, everybody can just set up whatever training programs they want to get a piece of the MD's pie! This will be a mess and disaster!!

Therefore, the bottomline of my argument is that yeah, it sucks that you go through all these trainings but are only allowed to do so little for your patients. But that's the way how world works. Because without the laws, anybody can take over other people's jobs with the "appropriate" training. And government regulations are there because 1) due to the lobbist's power and 2) to protect the patients.

Another flip side of the argument. If OD's truly really feel that their training is too good for what they can do, then why don't we pass a law to limit the number of years you have to go through OD schools. Let's cut it down to 2 years and save all of you some time, so ultimately your training and what you can do will be proportional. In some countries, optometry is a 2-year program at a technical school after you graduate from HIGHSCHOOL. In this country, you need a BA first and for what you can do, that's ridiculous, isn't it? So why don't we revamp the training system for optometrists?

Anyway, some random thoughts.....

Ahhhhh, I really hesitate to get into all of this.

There are very valid reasons that OD's have expanded their scope of practice over the years. Originally what would happen went something like this: An OD would have a patient come in with what was obviously a corneal abrasion. He would have to say to the patient, "Ms. Jones, what you have is a corneal abrasion. You need a topical antibiotic soln. qid OD x 10 days, a cycloplegic and a pressure patch overnight......but I can't do that for you. You will need to call an ophthalmologist (or your family doctor or his nurse) and if your lucky you can get an appointment in 3 or 4 weeks (and pay again).

It was unfair to the patient, inconvenient to the patient and just plain silly. OD's have shown over the past 25 years that they are JUST AS QUALIFIED to treat most non-surgical (and some minor surgical) cases. I do it daily....from glaucoma, corneal and conjunctival FB's, simple red eyes, no-so simple red eyes (Uveitis) etc. Some OMD's, years ago wrote article after article about how OD's (like me) would KILL patient's if we were allow to use dilating drops!! I am happy to say I use topical and oral meds everyday and have not killed anyone yet. AND I don't know of any OD's that have. It is 100% politcal and the only one complaining are a few OMD's who are not confident in their skills. If you good, you don't have to worry about what everybody else is doing.

There was an article on t.v. a few weeks ago about a guy who faked being an M.D. for 20 or 30 years. He was a pharmacist by trade and studied medical books and did pretty well for all those years until he got caught. His patients thought he was great. I work with 2 PA's that run their own clinic. They do pretty well. My point is that medical schools, as arrogant as they are, don't have a monopoly on education.

As far a education is concerned. I would contend that OMD's are WAY overtrained for what they do. They waste their time in medical school learning basic medicine. NO ophthalmologist does anything except treat eyes. They are not setting broken bones or treat ear infections. After med school they begin to learn about the eyes (for 3-4 years). We do it for 4 years.

In 20 years (if not sooner), there will be no more "general ophthalmologist". The successful ones today have all realized that they can not or should not try to compete will OD's. They have become secondary and teritary care providers and have make alot of money doing so.

If one of my pt.s needs caratact surgery. He goes out to one of our "cataract cowboys" who does a 10 minute cataract procedure with PCIOL's and gets $600 from medicare and I get the patient back and $150 for post-op care.

If the patient has a macular hemmorhage, he goes to our only vitreal/retinal guy in the area. He treats him the best he can (usually just prevents him from going more blind at best) and sends the patient back to me to explain to him why he is going blind.

If the patient has glaucoma......I diagnose and treat it. If he doesn't respond to topicals, I send him to our glaucoma surgeon who takes about 25 seconds to "laser" a peripheral iridotomy. The patient then comes back to me for visual fields and IOP's routinely.

I VERY rarely (read that never) send a patient to a general OMD. I don't need to. We actually only have 2 or 3 and they are very old and very anti-optometry. They decide, long ago to hate OD's and they are slowing fading away. The OMD's that befriended OD's (to get surgical referals) have prospered greatly. They KNOW their role.......as secondary and tertiary care providers (and as MY surgical technician).

P.S. This OMD/OD referral center put in a dispenary to sell glasses about 5 years ago when they realized how profitable it is.....much to the dismay of many OD's referring pts. there.

There is a blurring of the lines and no doubt there is no longer room for the GENERAL OPHTHALMOLOGIST. They are going the way of the dinosaur......like it or not.

Hi Tom,

Hear hear ..... I'll throw in a little story I have too.

I worked several summer for some great Ophthalmologists in my home town (Toronto). One of them is married to a Radiologist. She (the OMD) told me that one day she saw a body float past her cottage (in Northern Ontario).... both her and her husband pulled the body out and .. well.... panicked. What's an OMD and a Radiologist going to do?? So they hastilly started CPR and called an ambulance. Well their neighbour, thank god, was an ER nurse .. when she showed up, both MD's were all too eager to let her take over.

You see, even though there were both MD's, an ER nurse would probably know more of what to do in that kind of a situation.

Let me just add that both of them do not register as Dr's when flying on any airlines. Can you imagine an OMD trying to do a tracheotomy? .... I wouldn't either, but just because you have MD behind you name doesn't necessarily imply that you are the be and and end all of health care.

My 0.02 :)

Because my wife is a resident in ophthalmology I thought I'd offer this input to the discussion forum...

I think its ridiculous to compare an optometrist to an ophthalmologist...the optometrist is the primary eye care provider...the ophthalmologist is the surgeon...same area of medicine...different areas of expertise

Tom, I'd like to see what would happen if you told any surgeon to their face that they were your technician...lol

Hey Cushing,

My girlfriend is in her third year of Med School and is looking at hopefully getting into Ophthalmology.

I think that you may have taken Tom too literally. As I'm sure you are well aware, even within Medincine, those who are surgeons are regarded differently than those who practice medicine. I have been told that the "medicine" people are of the opinion that surgeons are the "cutters" while they themselves are the thinkers.

I myself don't really care either way. This whole hierarchical arrogance belies the underlying fact that everyone is health care plays an important role in patient care. And to quote Tom ... I'm getting off my soapbox now too.

Having read many of Tom's posts, I have no doubt that he has a great deal of respect for Ophthalmologists. It would be naive for any OD to think that they don't need OMD's. Likewise, I hope that many OMD's feel that OD's play an important role in eye care.

So because Tom calls feels that OMD's are "surgical technicians", you don't need to take offense. As I see it, he still refers to them and requires their expertise to manage his patients.

Don't we all just want to go out to McDonald's now and buy eachother lunch!

I guess I should clarify my comment's a little. I have great respect for most doctors, including, but not limited to, ophthalmologists. Whereever you go, you will find good one's (doctors that is) and bad ones. I find that it really doesn't matter what school they went to.

Your statement about the two profession as being distinct (one is medical and one is surgical or something like that) is not true. In fact, the scope of practice between OD's and OMD's blur about 85% of the time. It has been estimated that 80% of all ophthalmic surgery is performed by about 20% of Ophthalmologist. The remaining 80% or so are in direct competition with optometry. Hence, the conflict. The older OMD's here that I mentioned earlier don't even do surgery any longer. They are essentially optometrist.

I have had to quit referring patients to one OMD/OD referral group because they had a bad habit of keeping MY patients. I would send them in for cataract surgery. They would do the surgery and try to get them to come back every 3-4 months for dilated fundus exam and visual fields. Hello......they are MY patient that I have seen over the years. I can do (a very good and through) dilated fundus exam, with a 20D and 90D fundus lens (with photos) and visual fields.

I had to FIRE them. They were thieves and dishonest. I now work very well with another referral group of outstanding ophthalmologist. In fact, I am having lunch with them tomorrow and Wednesday. One is a great retinal surgeon and an all-around stud. The other is a glaucoma specialist and the third specializes solely on the cornea and anterior segment. They are happy to concetrate on doing surgery and get ALOT of referrals (and making much more money I am sure, than I am). I have no problem with that. They are outstanding at what they do.

Unlike organized ophthalmology, whos primary goal is to put down anything optometry, OD's are simply trying to do what that KNOW they can do.

Wow, this thread really picked up since my last post.

If OMD's really wanted to "squash" optometry, they could. Like I said before, it's all about trying to protect one's territory.

I am a soon to be DO student who has been lurking in this forum. I assume that an OMD is an opthalmologist, but what do the letters "O", "M", "D" stand for?

OMD is just an abbreviation some use for Ophthalmologist. It is not really a highly used abbreviation.....just shorter and easier to type.

A few years back the American Academy of Ophthalmology tried to get all of it's members to use the term "EyeMD" to distinguish themselves from optometrists. Most thought it was stupid and didn't use it. After all there are not "HeartMD's" or "BoneMD's". They figured the public could better identify them.

IMHO the field of optometry is slowly but surely expanding beyond the scope of its practice. Certain states allow ODs to perform minor laser eye surgery. There are even some ODs who think they should be allowed to perform LASIK. I have no problems with utilizing the services of an OD in the future. They are very well trained at what they do. In addition, I wouldn't want to waste my time doing what they do on a regular basis anyways. I definitely respect ODs. However, that level of respect quickly deteriorates and turns to disgust when I see what certain optometric "physicians" are trying to do.

Ok,

Not that this topic deserves any further attention, but I just can't help myself.

Can you (ie. poster above) explain why you feel that OD's are expanding outside the scope of practice?

Have you bothered to educate yourself regarding the level of training that we receive .. or are you stating your opinion as fact?

My girlfriend is currently in medical school and we discuss this topic all the time. What is frightening is how so many people blindly (no pun intended) trust their GP's for eyecare ... some GP's even go as far as refracting.

As technology and level of training of OD grads advances, should we not consider the fact that there should be a natural evolution of the scope of practice?

I just hope that you keep an open mind without prejudice.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays all.

Freddie,

I am not comparing an optometric physician to a general internist. I am making a comparison between an optometrist and an ophthalmologist.

I am fully aware of the rigorous and in depth study that it takes to become an optometrist. I'm a third year in a medical school that also has an optometry school.

I believe that optometrists provide excellent primary eye care to their patients. Therefore, I believe that the surgical aspects of the eye and its related structures is best handled by an ophthalmologist, a surgeon, who has completed a 4 year surgical residency in ophthalmology following 4 years of medical school.

Many ophthalmologist choose to refine their surgical area of expertise with further training in 1-3 year fellowships in retina-vitreous surgery, occuloplastic surgery, glaucoma, cornea and external diseases, and neuro-ophthalmology.

Also, I have no idea where TomOD got his statistic from. Every single OMD that I know of performs surgery as part of their practice. Like I said before...an ophthalmologist is an eye surgeon. Why wouldn't they perfrom surgery unless they were very old and close to retirement or unable to because of a physical disability.

Hello All,

What I was referring to on the earlier post was that while virtually all OMD's perform surgery there are a relative few "cataract cowboys and Refractive docs" that do quite a few more procedures then average. These are usually the ones advertising on T.V. and radio or working at the large referral centers. Most "regular" OMD's now combine surgical and medical eyecare with refractive care and eyewear which has been traditionally OD's field. So I guess the question is which came first....OD's expanding their scope of practice (to treating eye diseases) or OMD's expanding theirs (into refracting and dispensing).

But not to worry, there are plenty of eyes for all and if you are a good doctor (no matter what degree), then the patients will come....mostly from good word-of-mouth.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL....

Tom, OD

[quote]Originally posted by Jubileee:
<strong>Basically the arguement that Dr. Bates puts up is that the majority of refraction errors and even organic problems like iritis and glaucoma are disorders due to a strained state. That all that is required to get rid of this is learning how to relax the muscles in the eye.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh, just thought I'd add something. I wear glasses that... make me able to see stuff in the distance :D . Anyway, I was hypnotised (for nothing related to my eyes). After the session, I had virtually perfect vision without my glasses! It was amazing... unfortunately after a few hours my eyes were f*cked again :( Oh well :) . So, this theory of muscle relaxation sounds reasonable to me :)