Do you support Optometrists doing surgery? - ODs allowed to do scalpel surgery in OK!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Do you support Optometrists doing surgery?

  • Absolutely No: MD/DO/medical student

    Votes: 823 58.8%
  • Absolutely No: Optometrist/Optometry student

    Votes: 39 2.8%
  • Absolutely No: All others

    Votes: 147 10.5%
  • Yes w/ proper optometry "surgical fellowships": MD/DO/medical student

    Votes: 115 8.2%
  • Yes w/ proper optometry "surgical fellowships": Optometrist/Optometry student

    Votes: 107 7.6%
  • Yes w/ proper optometry "surgical fellowships": All others

    Votes: 61 4.4%
  • Absolutely Yes: MD/DO/medical student

    Votes: 13 0.9%
  • Absolutely Yes: Optometrist/Optometry student

    Votes: 27 1.9%
  • Absolutely Yes: All others

    Votes: 22 1.6%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 46 3.3%

  • Total voters
    1,400
Sledge2005 said:
Even if he did happen to go to one of the <1% of medical schools that allows people to test out of courses (I still am very skeptical of this), there is no way an optometry education would possibly let somebody test out of the kinds of basic science courses we went through the first year of medical school. In my biochem course there were people with masters degrees in biochem who still were only able to achieve a B. Therefore I tend to doubt that an optometry education would allow one to pass out of such classes. Besides, the vast majority of medical students have already taken a good amount of biochem in undergrad anyway.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I was at Stanford (this is no longer the case now that they have a systems-based curriculum), I placed out of 5 classes. They used to allow you to place ANY class (though I don't think anyone had the cojones to try to get out of anatomy or path). People did place out of biochem, micro, immuno, molbio, genetics, pharm, stats/epi, and various phys classes, among others... and one of my friends who had a PhD in molbio didn't even have to take the placement exam. They just passed her out of professional courtesy. It's a different world there now though...

Members don't see this ad.
 
FlyingDoc said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I was at Stanford (this is no longer the case now that they have a systems-based curriculum), I placed out of 5 classes. They used to allow you to place ANY class (though I don't think anyone had the cojones to try to get out of anatomy or path). People did place out of biochem, micro, immuno, molbio, genetics, pharm, stats/epi, and various phys classes, among others... and one of my friends who had a PhD in molbio didn't even have to take the placement exam. They just passed her out of professional courtesy. It's a different world there now though...

What was your background coming into med school?
 
FlyingDoc said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I was at Stanford (this is no longer the case now that they have a systems-based curriculum), I placed out of 5 classes. They used to allow you to place ANY class (though I don't think anyone had the cojones to try to get out of anatomy or path). People did place out of biochem, micro, immuno, molbio, genetics, pharm, stats/epi, and various phys classes, among others... and one of my friends who had a PhD in molbio didn't even have to take the placement exam. They just passed her out of professional courtesy. It's a different world there now though...

Okay, maybe I'm just a little too new-school, but so far we've heard of 2 med schools that used to allow people to place out of classes, but have since stopped. I guess things were different in the past. I know there is no way in hell my school, or any med school that I've heard anything about, will currently let you place out of classes. Maybe there are a few out there, but it's definitely the exception. Regardless, it's a moot point since from what I've seen of optometry's curriculum, it wouldn't be close to enough to place out of med school courses. Since that last sentence was the point of my post you were quoting, I'm not sure how you were bursting my bubble . . . but apology accepted.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Sledge2005 said:
Even if he did happen to go to one of the <1% of medical schools that allows people to test out of courses (I still am very skeptical of this), there is no way an optometry education would possibly let somebody test out of the kinds of basic science courses we went through the first year of medical school. In my biochem course there were people with masters degrees in biochem who still were only able to achieve a B. Therefore I tend to doubt that an optometry education would allow one to pass out of such classes. Besides, the vast majority of medical students have already taken a good amount of biochem in undergrad anyway.

Your doubt is your downfall, and ultimately why you underestimate optometric education. While you laugh it up, optometry schools have established an extremely effective method for training new OD's. This process continues to evolve, and incorporates all aspects of primary eyecare. I'm not saying that this guy did what he claims, but I am pointing out that your comments reflect a rather poor assessment of the facts. Biochem?, give me a break already. Yes, it is a vast subject, I did marginally well in it, enjoyed it actually. But you are deluded if you think that only medical school provides comprehensive biochemistry.
 
PBEA said:
Your doubt is your downfall

Thank you, sensei.

PBEA said:
But you are deluded if you think that only medical school provides comprehensive biochemistry.

It's funny, but I don't recall saying anything of that nature. If anything, my biochem classes in undergrad were probably more comprehensive then my med school courses. However, the med school classes were more targeted (and to some degree clinically correlated) to what is pertinent toward medicine. For example, they stressed a lot of pathways that undergrad just skimmed over, b/c those pathways were more involved in specific disease entities or drug reactions. After lecture in med school, we'd then have clincal correlations where we'd learn about the diseases and see patients with those specific syndromes. Regardless though, I'm sure there are many places that teach biochem just as well as, if not better then, medical schools. However, optometry schools are not one of those places. I have several friends, including a close one from undergrad, that went to optometry school. Their descriptions of their basic science courses indicate that the courses are simply not even close to being as detailed as the basic sciences courses in med schools. While my experience is anecdotal, I've no reason to believe that optometry schools elsewhere are much different. Maybe some do teach biochem in a very detailed manner. But now we're starting to add a lot of maybe's on top of a story that we're already pretty sure is false . . .
 
I want to thank all those who take the time to post in this thread. Your contributions have made this thread a valuable contribution to ophthalmology.

This thread is being read by more than those on SDN. Search Google with these terms: optometrists doing surgery

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=optometrists+doing+surgery

This thread is #1 out of 30,400 hits on Google!
 
It's amazing to think with managed care and the push for cost containment how non-providers are lobying more and more for practicing medicine without a license. I can't imagine a non-surgeon doing ANYTHING invasive with my eyes. I'm currently doing a Psychiatry residency and we've been dealing with a push for Psychologists to become full independent prescribers. A law was just passed in Louisiana allowing Psycholigists to prescribe anything but Narcotics. Their curriculum consists of something like 400 hours of classroom time, doing a 100 patient practicum and then passing a licensing exam that is administered by their fellow Psychology Board. Yep believe it or not, a medical licensing exam administered by a Psychology board! I cringe at the thought when they kill one of their patients for not recognizing QT prolongation while on Geodon, or Lithium toxicity, or a patient going into Acute Dystonia closing off their airway, etc, etc, etc. Some of the most powerful drugs in the world are soon to be prescribed by non-medical "professionals" for the simple fact they wanted a piece of the monetary pie and no politician in Louisiana wanted to be on record as being against "greater access to health care." The trend is continuing, New Mexico has a similar law on the books and Tennessee has a bill in their state house now. This concerns not only Psychiatrists, but should concern everyone. Once leeway is given in one specialty it will surely follow in others and seems to be already happening. e.g. Nurse practitioners, dentists, chiroquackers, etc. Not sure if anything will stop the tide, but we may have a chance if all specialties unite together to fight. Time will tell.
 
Deek said:
I agree with you "Go Blue." If optometrist want to do what Ophthalmologist do, please go to medical school and do a residency in Ophthalmology and stop posting on this thread. BTW, why do AAO allows optometrist do take courses at the national meetings? Optometrist need to accept the reality that they are optometrist and not Ophthalmologist. If you are not happy with it then go to medical school. Thank you.

GO TEXAS!!! :D

I don't think the AAO allows OD's to go to CME classes anymore - with good reason. The OD's brought it upon themselves. I don't respect OD's as much as I use to (which was a good deal since I have 3 friends in optometry school).

I think MD's and DO's need to do as much as they can politically just as the OD's have done and keep them from making stupid attempts.
 
MacGyver said:
The key to winning this battle is access to care. When optometrists point out that only 18 of Oklahoma's 77 counties has MDs for eye care, that sends a very powerful message to the politicians.

One way to change this is to expand opthalmology residency slots. Many people get turned away from opthalmology, and this gives the optoms EXACTLY the ammunition they need to expand scope.

Opthalmologists DESPERATELY need data showing that optometry care is inferior and increases patient risk. If they cant show such data, why should the state legislatures listen to them?

Whats the deal with Oklahoma and optometrists? Are there a lot of optometrists who happen to serve in the state legislature? I dont get it. There are lots of states that have even more rural areas than OKlahoma, and I dont see them continually expanding optoms scope of practice.

I think the issue of access should not be an issue at all. The fact is optometrists are not trained medical doctors and therefore can not be surgeons. You need to be a medical doctor before you become a surgeon. Period. Why then OK legislator wont allow pharmacists to prescribe in the areas where there are no MDs? It is simple, because pharmacists are not trained medical doctors even though they have a lot of knowledge about most drugs.
 
I know this is a rhetorical question but please...I cannot believe how politicians can be bought off and the audacity of non-surgeons to even think about putting patient safety and well being behind their obvious ambitious greed.
 
Press Release Source: American Academy of Ophthalmology


Oklahoma Patients' Safety at Risk: One-Of-A-Kind State Law Allows Non-Physicians To Perform Eye Surgery
Wednesday March 2, 6:39 pm ET
- National Medical Leaders Protest Law in Oklahoma City


OKLAHOMA CITY, March 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Leaders of the nation's medical and osteopathic associations met in Oklahoma City today to protest a one-of-a-kind Oklahoma law and regulation that allows optometrists to perform eye surgery with a scalpel.
ADVERTISEMENT


"We're here to urge the Oklahoma legislature to strike down the Optometry Board's rule allowing non-physicians to perform delicate eye surgery," said William A. Hazel, M.D., American Medical Association Trustee at a press conference today at the state capitol. "A vote against optometrists performing eye surgery is a vote for patient safety."

Oklahoma is the only state in the nation that allows non-physicians to perform eye surgery.

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Optometry will meet next week to make their preliminary rule permanent -- allowing optometrists to perform literally dozens of scalpel surgical procedures. The procedures include use of the scalpel and insertion of needles directly into the eye. If the state legislature does not vote to overturn the regulation, the quality and safety of surgical eye care for Oklahoma's patients will be at risk.

"The chasm between the education of ophthalmologists and optometrists cannot be bridged by writing laws," said Susan Day, M.D., American Academy of Ophthalmology President. "Ophthalmologists complete four years of medical or osteopathic school, a one year hospital internship and three years of specialized medical and surgical training before undertaking any unsupervised surgical procedure. Optometrists attend a four-year optometry program before being licensed to conduct eye exams and order glasses."

"This is about the quality of health care that patients receive," said Dr. Philip Shettle, an osteopathic ophthalmologist and President-elect of the American Osteopathic Association. "It's about an urgent need to protect patient safety and quality of care. Optometrists want to gain the right to perform these scalpel surgical procedures via the political and regulatory process. We seek to guard patient safety and uphold quality of care. Only in Oklahoma are non-physicians allowed to perform surgery on patients. It is the objective of the medical communities to raise public awareness of the long- term negative impact that the optometric scalpel surgery regulation will have on patient care in Oklahoma. Our goal is to encourage Oklahoma legislators to step in and reject the optometric scalpel regulation."

The American Medical Association, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Osteopathic Association, American College of Surgeons and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons are focused on preserving patient safety and quality of care for all of Oklahoma's surgical eye care patients
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050302/nyw183_1.html
 
John_Doe said:
Susan Day, M.D., American Academy of Ophthalmology President. Optometrists attend a four-year optometry program before being licensed to conduct eye exams and order glasses."

"]

Well, I guess we all know now how the AAO regards the profession of optometry.

These posts and debates are getting very tiresome.

Is optometry a surgical profession? No.

Does the current 4 years of optometric education prepare one to perform invasive surgeries? No.

If the program was revamped, could it? Yes.

Because contrary to what is spouted in these forums, traditional allopathic medical education/residency is not the only possible path to enlightenment.

Dentists perform invasive surgical procedures and prescribe a myriad of dangerous drugs. They go to school for 4 years. Is anyone jumping up and down demanding that dentists must go to medical school in order to prescribe vicodin, inject novocaine, and drill into teeth? No.

When my son was born last year, he was circumcised by a Mohel who I'm pretty sure did not go to 4 years of college, 4 years of allopathic medical school, internship, residency, fellowship blah blah blah. Yet there is not an epidemic of circumcised boys running around with damaged penises because they didn't have "surgery by surgeons."

Jenny
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Is there any reason why the American Academy of Ophthalmology and American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons can’t go on the offensive and try to back a bill at the Congressional level to define surgery (and those who perform it) as it applies to the fields of ophthalmology and optometry.


(i.e...eye surgery, as defined by the use of laser and scalpel...cannot be performed in the absence of a trained and licensed ophthalmologist...)


This could be marketed on the broader scope of “patient safety” rather than simply settling an ophthalmologist-optometrist dispute. We do have a Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) that is a cardiothoracic surgeon and the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928. With the strong backing of the American College of Surgeons and American Medical Association (as evidence by their support in Oklahoma on March 2nd), this patient safety issue may be of interest at a higher level.

Is this too over the top?
 
JennyW said:
Is optometry a surgical profession? No.

Does the current 4 years of optometric education prepare one to perform invasive surgeries? No.

If the program was revamped, could it? Yes.

Because contrary to what is spouted in these forums, traditional allopathic medical education/residency is not the only possible path to enlightenment.

Dentists perform invasive surgical procedures and prescribe a myriad of dangerous drugs. They go to school for 4 years. Is anyone jumping up and down demanding that dentists must go to medical school in order to prescribe vicodin, inject novocaine, and drill into teeth? No.

When my son was born last year, he was circumcised by a Mohel who I'm pretty sure did not go to 4 years of college, 4 years of allopathic medical school, internship, residency, fellowship blah blah blah. Yet there is not an epidemic of circumcised boys running around with damaged penises because they didn't have "surgery by surgeons."

Jenny

I agree with your first point; there's nothing inherently lacking in an optometrist that prevents them from assimilating the skills necessary to perform surgey. The problem is that revamping optometry school to the extent required to produce surgeons would result in an end product that looked and felt a lot like med school, with a lot of the time commitment and other turn-offs that turned most optometrists to optometry in the first place.

What gets ophthalmologists really steamed is when certain laws are passed that allow surgery with minimal or no reworking of the optometric education process. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

As far as the dentists and Mohelin, these are two professions that have historically been surgical and the training reflects that. Mohelin have extensive surgical training including all the proper allopathic rotations, and that just to work on the foreskin for crying out loud. The last time I checked, there was no voice echoing down from the heavens commanding optometrists to surgically cleanse the earth of ocular disease.
 
So surgery by non-surgeons is okay if you're cutting away on the penis but not the eye? :eek:

quote "However, ritual circumcision may be done by nonmedical individuals such as some individuals of the Jewish faith who are trained in the procedure (mohels)." http://www.pamf.org/children/healthinfo/index1.cfm?page=article&sgml_id=hw142449

mdkurt said:
I agree with your first point; there's nothing inherently lacking in an optometrist that prevents them from assimilating the skills necessary to perform surgey. The problem is that revamping optometry school to the extent required to produce surgeons would result in an end product that looked and felt a lot like med school, with a lot of the time commitment and other turn-offs that turned most optometrists to optometry in the first place.

What gets ophthalmologists really steamed is when certain laws are passed that allow surgery with minimal or no reworking of the optometric education process. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

As far as the dentists and Mohelin, these are two professions that have historically been surgical and the training reflects that. Mohelin have extensive surgical training including all the proper allopathic rotations, and that just to work on the foreskin for crying out loud. The last time I checked, there was no voice echoing down from the heavens commanding optometrists to surgically cleanse the earth of ocular disease.
 
Loncifer said:
So surgery by non-surgeons is okay if you're cutting away on the penis but not the eye? :eek:

Cutting a tiny piece of skin off isn't exactly analgous to major eye surgery. Furthermore, there are actually a good number of babies severly injured every year from circumcisions. If we lived in a perfect world, where every circumcision would be done by a urologist, I would bet that there would be far fewer complications. Of course that's completely not feasible. However, having all eye surgeries done by ophthalmologists is very feasible (many areas have too many ophthalmologists) and there is no reason to start allowing non-surgeons to start doing eye surgery.
 
JennyW said:
These posts and debates are getting very tiresome.

Is optometry a surgical profession? No.

Does the current 4 years of optometric education prepare one to perform invasive surgeries? No.

If the program was revamped, could it? Yes

The question is not COULD optometry education be revamped, but SHOULD it be revamped.

Do we really need more surgeons? NO. I see no public benefit to training more optometric surgeons.
 
JennyW said:
Well, I guess we all know now how the AAO regards the profession of optometry.

These posts and debates are getting very tiresome.

Is optometry a surgical profession? No.

Does the current 4 years of optometric education prepare one to perform invasive surgeries? No.

If the program was revamped, could it? Yes.

Because contrary to what is spouted in these forums, traditional allopathic medical education/residency is not the only possible path to enlightenment.

Dentists perform invasive surgical procedures and prescribe a myriad of dangerous drugs. They go to school for 4 years. Is anyone jumping up and down demanding that dentists must go to medical school in order to prescribe vicodin, inject novocaine, and drill into teeth? No.

When my son was born last year, he was circumcised by a Mohel who I'm pretty sure did not go to 4 years of college, 4 years of allopathic medical school, internship, residency, fellowship blah blah blah. Yet there is not an epidemic of circumcised boys running around with damaged penises because they didn't have "surgery by surgeons."

Jenny

So then you are suggesting that the 8-10 years of medical and surgical training that Ophthalmologists undergo is a waste of time. That all of this can be accomplished in 4 years of optometry school?

I guess I see a difference in that dentists are not seeking to legislate the scope of their practice. Those that do periodontics surgery complete a 2-3 year residency after dental school. Those that do OMFS must attend 2 years of medical school plus several years of additional training in OMFS surgery. Similarly with orthodontics. Dentristy is not legislating shortcuts in training to expand their scope of practice.

There is more to any given surgical procedure than being able to do the procedure. There is the clinical judgement learned during training of when to do the procedure, is it truly necessary, how to handle complications, etc..

A scrub tech or surgical assistant who is involved in surgery all day every day could probably competently perform many surgical procedures, but taking everything into account, should a scrub tech or SA be permitted to independently perform surgery?

One other point. The medical profession is doing an extremely effective job of ensuring that new physicians are well trained. Medical students now must pass USMLE Step 1,2,and 3. And these tests are becoming increasingly more difficult. Included now with Step 3, students must travel to several sites around the country to demonstrate their skills in mock patient scenarios to ensure competency. Before physicians are even allowed to prescribe medicines, they must complete an additional year of residency following medical school. That is five years of training. In Ophthalmology residency, residents must take the national OKAPS exam yearly, written and oral board certification exam following residency, yearly CME, and furthermore, there is now periodic board re-certification.

Most physicians would be happy to not have to undergo such rigorous testing. However, the public holds physicians to this standard.

These other professions-nurse practicioners, CRNA's, pharmacists, optometrists, psychologists are attempting to lobby and legislate their independence and expand the scope of their practice without undergoing what they know is the proper training and what society demands is the proper training. It is a shortcut and they know it. This obviously tells you something about these people. They are preying on the ignorance of the public. If you call yourself "doctor," most people assume you are a physician. As I take call in our ER, probably 80% of folks who come in have no idea that an optometrist is not a physician, and appear dumbfounded and mislead that the OD they were seeing called him/herself doctor. The nurse practicioners at our county hospital do it as do the pharmacists at our VA. Patients have no idea they are not seeing a physician. I believe this is unethical and wrong. Perhaps our society is changing, but for me, I plan to trust the care of myself and loved ones to those with an M.D. behind their name.
 
PDT4CNV said:
'... As I take call in our ER, probably 80% of folks who come in have no idea that an optometrist is not a physician, and appear dumbfounded and mislead that the OD they were seeing called him/herself doctor. The nurse practicioners at our county hospital do it as do the pharmacists at our VA. Patients have no idea they are not seeing a physician. I believe this is unethical and wrong. Perhaps our society is changing, but for me, I plan to trust the care of myself and loved ones to those with an M.D. behind their name.

Dear PDT4CNV,
The reasons that you're seeing these invidividuals in these positions are the actions of other physician managers. Blame them and not the people who are "hired" to do these duties.

Richard
 
JennyW said:
Dentists perform invasive surgical procedures and prescribe a myriad of dangerous drugs. They go to school for 4 years. Is anyone jumping up and down demanding that dentists must go to medical school in order to prescribe vicodin, inject novocaine, and drill into teeth? No.
Jenny

I frequently wonder why dentistry is the yardstick of choice in these discussions. Our position doesn't generalize at all to the dispute between OD's & MD's. General dentists spend four full years practicing the surgical procedures they perform in practice, and specialists performing more complicated surgeries spend several years (three to six) in residency receiving additional training.

JennyW said:
Is optometry a surgical profession? No.
Dentistry is a surgical profession, and therein lies all the difference. Most of the meds dentists write are either pre-, peri-, or post-operative. The list of conditions your average DDS/DMD manages long-term is relatively short, and for darned sure it's dwarfed, just as throughout dentistry's entire history, by the number we treat surgically.
 
Richard_Hom said:
Dear PDT4CNV,
The reasons that you're seeing these invidividuals in these positions are the actions of other physician managers. Blame them and not the people who are "hired" to do these duties.

Richard

Actually, I believe physicians as a group are to blame. We are not a united front. Now we are being taken advantage of by insurance companies, and we see these other non-MD health professions doing what they are all doing (ODs, CRNAs, pyschologists, PharmDs, etc..). While we as a community are making it more difficult for medical students to become physicians and physicians to remain physicians, largely due to public/media outcry over "bad doctors", other health care professions are doing the opposite, they are making it easier for themselves via legal strategizing and maneuvering.

With the new 3 strike law in florida, the lawyers are taking their piece of the pie as well.

Why would any college student want to take the MCAT, undergo 4 years of medical school, USMLE step 1,2,3, internship, residency, board certification, possibly fellowship, and periodic board recertification to become a physician/surgeon when all one has to do is go to 4 years of optometry school and one can prescribe medicine, treat disease, and perform surgery.

The idea of a nurse giving me controlled doses of a poison (anesthesia) in the operating room is scary. The idea of a nurse running a code on me is frightening.

Physicians as a group should have been much more united 20-25 years ago when some of these issues were surfacing. If we had done better then, we would not be having these discussions now.
 
I am still pretty confused as to how optometrists plan on doing surgery without any real training other than a few wetlabs.

I think most lawyers would have a hayday w/this... it is hilarious to think that optoms would risk peoples eyesight just for a few extra bucks. If I was a lawyer I think it would be easy to pin down an optometrist on a few points and raise their malpractice on avg through the roof.
1. they didn't have enough surgical training
2. they aren't as qualified medically (by the selection process of medschool and residency) as their counterpart MDs (they never had the process of going through 2 yrs of rotations and an intern year)
3. they can't manage other medical conditions

Even if optoms make a residency equivalent... the program directors and future optom surgeons will be the best of their class and they aren't just going to open up a ton of spots for every optom that wants to do surgery and kill their own living by flooding the market. Chances are you will also need to do research and other stuff to make yourself competitive.

In the market, when it comes to high volume lasik; big surgery centers are competitive and it WILL be pointed out over and over by MDs that their competition NEVER went to medical school. In the hospital a neurologist is not going to refer a patient to an optom b/c it is more likely he will get a referral from an ophtho and also b/c they are in the know and realize that optoms are just not as qualified.

The last point I want to make is that the vast majority of people going into ophtho now are well aware of what optometry is trying to do. Also, you are dealing with some of the brightest and most capable doctors out there ie: Doan and JR. I know I have talked to quite a few people in my 3rd yr class and trust me when it comes to pt safety and protection of our specialty there will be no exceptions made... the last thing an orthopod would allow is a chiropractor to do surgery... and we sure as heck aren't going to let optoms continue this sort of action. Sorry for the rant... some of the comments by optoms on this thread are ridiculous.

-ra
 
PDT4CNV said:
The idea of a nurse giving me controlled doses of a poison (anesthesia) in the operating room is scary. The idea of a nurse running a code on me is frightening.

I agree with most of what you said here...but this part is seriously screwed up. Anytime anyone gives you ANY medication, you're getting "controlled doses of a poison."
 
Andrew_Doan said:
The question is not COULD optometry education be revamped, but SHOULD it be revamped.

Do we really need more surgeons? NO. I see no public benefit to training more optometric surgeons.
Once again the illustrious Dr. Doan finds time to pontificate over the "turf war". That's right, it all boils down to keeping one profession in its place right?? Seriously, how do you find so much time to talk about what OD are doing, or not doing, and how it ought to be, blah, blah, blah? Andy, the line between optometry and ophthalmology is beginning to blur, and it will continue to do so. OD's will more than likely never to O.R. surgery. They probably will over the coming years do YAGs, chalazions, minor procedures, ect. That's just the way it's gong to be. . . regardless of how many times you post you opinions.
 
In a perfect world, the best solution would be for OD's & OMD's in each community to come to an understanding about scope of practice and work together. However, we can see that ODs are well organized nationally and they're determined to assault the traditional realm of medical practice to increase their own profits/egos/careers. OMD's can go on the offensive by working with the one group that OD's truly fear - OMTs (ophthalmic medical technologists). EVERY state Ophthalmology program should establish an OMT training program and agressively market the program to college kids interested in health tech positions. These OMTs will train with Ophthalmology residents and go to some of the same lectures + grand rounds together - basically OMT's and OMD's will develop the kind of relationships that would foster goodwill and cooperation, plus they will have cooperatively developed clearly definted roles in the management of eye care. Once established politically, OMTs can promote their own scope of practice to erode the OD's bases - eyeglasses prescription and sales. OMDs and OMTs can develop the partnership that SHOULD exist between OD's and OMD's. 20 years from now the OD's will be whittiling away their diminishing days working at Wal-Mart and fighting their own battles to stay in business.
 
monstermatch said:
In a perfect world, the best solution would be for OD's & OMD's in each community to come to an understanding about scope of practice and work together. However, we can see that ODs are well organized nationally and they're determined to assault the traditional realm of medical practice to increase their own profits/egos/careers. OMD's can go on the offensive by working with the one group that OD's truly fear - OMTs (ophthalmic medical technologists). EVERY state Ophthalmology program should establish an OMT training program and agressively market the program to college kids interested in health tech positions. These OMTs will train with Ophthalmology residents and go to some of the same lectures + grand rounds together - basically OMT's and OMD's will develop the kind of relationships that would foster goodwill and cooperation, plus they will have cooperatively developed clearly definted roles in the management of eye care. Once established politically, OMTs can promote their own scope of practice to erode the OD's bases - eyeglasses prescription and sales. OMDs and OMTs can develop the partnership that SHOULD exist between OD's and OMD's. 20 years from now the OD's will be whittiling away their diminishing days working at Wal-Mart and fighting their own battles to stay in business.
Wow, that is a great idea, you should run with that.
 
monstermatch,

How exactly do you think the profession of optometry got started? You scenario sounds remarkably similiar to the history of optometry.
 
I guess its time for a fresh start.
 
jchod said:
Andy, the line between optometry and ophthalmology is beginning to blur, and it will continue to do so. OD's will more than likely never to O.R. surgery. They probably will over the coming years do YAGs, chalazions, minor procedures, ect. That's just the way it's gong to be. . . regardless of how many times you post you opinions.

It's not blurring that much yet.

It's easy for optometry to ask for more and always step back and ask for less, such as "minor procedures". However, the laws in OK and NM aren't asking for just what you describe above. Until optometry steps back, I will continue to post, be involved politically with the AAO, and give money to my PAC. BTW, my efforts are paying off because I have worked with several AAO leaders to register over 35 residents for the Mid-Year Forum in Washington D.C. in April (http://www.eyeorbit.org/article.php?story=20050125235057335). This is almost a three-fold increase in resident participation from last year. I'll be attending this year as a guest speaker. Thanks for your comments, but apathy is not in my vocabulary.
 
xmattODx said:
I hate to hi-jack this thread - perhaps it would be better as a new thread. What do you people think optometrists should be able to do? i.e. only refract, glaucoma treatment, treatment of ocular infections, etc.

An optometrist just about blinded me with a pair of ill fitting contacts.
 
March 15, 2005
Oklahoma Optometry Board Allows ODs to Perform Surgery with a Scalpel
What began in Oklahoma must end in Oklahoma

As expected, the Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Optometry last week voted to make permanent a regulation that allows optometrists to perform surgery with a scalpel. Now we begin implementation of the legislative phase of the Oklahoma Surgery by Surgeons campaign.

Oklahoma's governor and legislature have 45 days to take action. They can either do nothing and this dangerous regulation will become law, or they can vote to accept or reject it.

The Academy, the Oklahoma Academy of Ophthalmology, and the Oklahoma State Medical Association have already begun turning up the heat with a series of radio advertisements and press releases urging the governor and legislature to reject the rule for the sake of patient safety. Our message is gaining traction! However, it is quite expensive. Please help support it with an immediate contribution online to the Surgical Scope Fund, or send a check to the address below.

Almost a decade ago, Oklahoma optometrists got their foot in the door with the nation's first-ever law allowing ODs to perform laser surgery. Now, they are poised to bust the door wide open with a vague law that allows them to perform more than 100 surgical procedures. It's up to us to slam the door shut.

The optometry lobby has worked to duplicate Oklahoma's laser surgery law in other states and in the VA. But the Academy—united with the American Medical Association, the Osteopathic Association, American College of Surgeons and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons and backed by a well-endowed Surgical Scope Fund—has succeeded in keeping Oklahoma on the fringe. Still, new threats are emerging across the nation, in New Mexico, Texas and Alaska.

What began in Oklahoma must end in Oklahoma. Give to the Surgical Scope Fund TODAY.

If you have any questions, please contact Denna Suko at [email protected] or 202.737.6662.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Academy of Ophthalmology
Governmental Affairs Division
Suite 700 | 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW | Washington, D.C. 20005-3570
Tel. 202.737.6662 | Fax 202.737.7061 | www.aao.org
 
John_Doe said:
March 15, 2005
Oklahoma Optometry Board Allows ODs to Perform Surgery with a Scalpel
What began in Oklahoma must end in Oklahoma

As expected, the Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Optometry last week voted to make permanent a regulation that allows optometrists to perform surgery with a scalpel. Now we begin implementation of the legislative phase of the Oklahoma Surgery by Surgeons campaign.

Oklahoma's governor and legislature have 45 days to take action. They can either do nothing and this dangerous regulation will become law, or they can vote to accept or reject it.

. . . Still, new threats are emerging across the nation, in New Mexico, Texas and Alaska.

What began in Oklahoma must end in Oklahoma. Give to the Surgical Scope Fund TODAY.

If you have any questions, please contact Denna Suko at [email protected] or 202.737.6662.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Does anyone know how this regulation will affect optometric training? Will optometrists from all over the country be able to train in OK as an optometry student, and get direct experience in the 100 + surgical procedures that will be allowed in OK?
 
This is a very interesting article that appeared in a New Mexico publication.




ABQjournal

Monday, February 21, 2005

Optometric Physicians Are Trained for Eye Surgery

By Dr. Jennifer Planitz-Clatanoff
Optometric Physician
How would you feel about a proposal that allowed patients more freedom of choice and better access to quality eye care? How would you feel if that same proposal saved consumers millions while continuing the highest patient service standards?
House Bill 199 proposes to do just that, not take New Mexico down a "dangerous path" as suggested by Dr. Kathleen Blake, president of the New Mexico Medical Society.
HB 199 would allow optometric physicians in the state of New Mexico to perform minor surgical procedures that are currently being taught in optometry schools. These procedures are being successfully performed by optometric physicians in other states, saving consumers millions in unnecessary additional office visits.
Blake irresponsibly states that optometric physicians "are not trained to diagnose, manage, or treat such events." Let's examine the truth about the training of optometric physicians, and how closely it parallels medical, dental, and podiatric schools.
The curriculum at each of the 17 U.S. schools and colleges of optometry is continuously updated to keep up with the rapid pace of development in medical care, so that graduates can be well trained in the use of new technologies, including lasers and other medical treatments related to eye disorders.
The training of optometric physicians is quite similar to that of dentists and podiatrists: Training is very highly specialized in treating one area of the body, with a broad supportive background in general health and medicine. The curriculum followed in all 17 schools is quite similar to medical school, in which the first and second years of education are primarily classroom instruction in the basic sciences. That education provides a scientific underpinning in all areas of complete eyecare, which includes the foundation for surgical procedures and techniques.
During the third and fourth years of the curriculum, students in all programs apply classroom instruction in the clinical care setting provided through the schools' clinics and extern sites throughout the country.
At Northeastern State University College of Optometry in Oklahoma, for example, students complete more than 40,000 patient contacts each year. Each student is educated in the risks and benefits of surgical procedures. The state law of Oklahoma allows optometric physicians, who have been certified, to perform certain surgical and laser procedures, as authorized by the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners in Optometry.
Graduates of the professional optometric doctoral programs are taught to handle emergencies and provide patient care with one thought always in mind— patient health and safety comes first and is never compromised. The extensive certification process for laser and surgical procedures used in Oklahoma comes as part of the four-year professional curriculum and continuing post-graduate training for any optometric physicians that graduate from that program, in contrast to the medical model standard, which remains, "see one, do one, teach one."
Optometric physicians who perform laser surgery have done so safely and effectively for more than 15 years. To date, there have been no complaints by the public to either the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision or any other state regulatory board in regard to issues of malpractice or adverse outcomes resulting from optometric physicians performing laser surgery. The Veterans Administration has issued a written statement confirming that all laser surgical procedures performed by optometric physicians at VA facilities had acceptable outcomes with no complications.
This is reflected in the extraordinarily low malpractice premiums paid by optometric physicians as compared with ophthalmology. In contrast, an ophthalmologist's malpractice insurance, on average, costs 36 times more than an optometric physician practicing full scope.
Blake also incorrectly implied that optometric physicians do not prescribe drugs. Optometric physicians have been prescribing drugs in New Mexico for 20 years. Results: successful treatment of eye disease, no malpractice suits settled against optometry (can medicine say the same?), improved patient access to care and substantial savings of taxpayer dollars. Early detection of eye disease by optometric physicians using diagnostic drugs for the last 30 years has led only to the prevention of blindness— not heart attacks, disability or blindness, as is always the rallying cry of the medical lobby.
To mislead the public is both irresponsible and unethical. The truth is that optometric physicians have the background and training to address the relief of ocular abnormalities of New Mexicans, including the surgical and laser procedures for which they are trained and certified.
In a state where billboards beg for more medical professionals, it makes sense to utilize the ones that we have to their fullest potential.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jennifer Planitz-Clatanoff is immediate past president of the New Mexico Optometric Association.
 
That article is disgusting! Thank god the bill was defeated.
 
A nice load of propaganda indeed... What is the ABQjournal anyway? Just curious who the intended "audience" was...
 
We need this woman to continue to write optometry's propaganda. That article was so dense even I had a tough time getting through it.
 
mdkurt said:
We need this woman to continue to write optometry's propaganda. That article was so dense even I had a tough time getting through it.

mdkurt,
If you need help with any of the big words you can PM me. :)

-L
 
What is the point of this stupid post? You obviously have nothing constructive to contribute; everyone here has seen your posts before and they are usually dumb one-liners. Please try to restrain yourself from posting this garbage.


Loncifer said:
mdkurt,
If you need help with any of the big words you can PM me. :)

-L
 
JR said:
What is the point of this stupid post? You obviously have nothing constructive to contribute; everyone here has seen your posts before and they are usually dumb one-liners. Please try to restrain yourself from posting this garbage.

Thanks JR,
In future I'll submit my posts for your advance approval.
 
Loncifer said:
mdkurt,
If you need help with any of the big words you can PM me. :)

-L

Thanks for the offer--the most confusing word for me was "physician", which gets thrown out there right from the get-go. I'm confused, because the context has to do with optometrists. She could've been more clear for simple-minded people like myself and used the initials "O.D.", but I guess she forgot.
 
JR said:
What is the point of this stupid post? You obviously have nothing constructive to contribute; everyone here has seen your posts before and they are usually dumb one-liners. Please try to restrain yourself from posting this garbage.


I dunno JR--

I don't think the purpose of being a moderator is to give this kind of criticism. I happen to agree that his last post was crap, but the guy has the right to post whatever he wants as long as its not abusive. Let people's stupid comments speak for themselves.
 
Simple.

Everyone says OK needs more opthos, but very few seem willing to go there (why?). Here's the deal.

1. Guarantee me a spot in optho residency. (I'm a 3rd yr student from a foreign school, so I can sign outside the Match anytime you want me to, just say the word).
2. I'll sign a contract to practice in Oklahoma after residency +/- fellowship.

Anyone else willing to join me? In no time, we can have a horde of soon-to-be opthalmic surgeons chomping at the bit to go to the front lines and alleviate the shortage of good eye care in this underprivileged state. :D
 
tRmedic21 said:
Simple.

Everyone says OK needs more opthos, but very few seem willing to go there (why?). Here's the deal.

1. Guarantee me a spot in optho residency. (I'm a 3rd yr student from a foreign school, so I can sign outside the Match anytime you want me to, just say the word).
2. I'll sign a contract to practice in Oklahoma after residency +/- fellowship.

Anyone else willing to join me? In no time, we can have a horde of soon-to-be opthalmic surgeons chomping at the bit to go to the front lines and alleviate the shortage of good eye care in this underprivileged state. :D

Are you sure? I mean, desparation is one thing, but...

I once drove through OK on the way to Texas, and my memories of that trip have been boiled down to one mental snapshot of a lot of flatness and dust. If it weren't for the principle of the thing, I'd let the optos have the damn state. I think it really says something about optometry's market saturation when you can't swing a dead cat in Oklahoma without hitting one.
 
Loncifer said:
MD'05,
It could have been worse, you could have gone to see this guy: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2005/feb/25/518353037.html

I find it interesting that Loncifer posted a link relating to a medical doctor who turned out to be a bad apple. It appears he is missing the point of the entire thread, but only worked to strengthen the argument against ODs with surgical practice rights.
After years of training as a MD/DO there is always going to be some idiot which makes the medical community look bad. My point being that pointing out one bad apple does not justify giving certain practice rights to an OD but actually strengthens the argument for the need for fully qualified and trained medical doctors to provide surgical treatment.
Think about it, if a fully trained ophthamologist is injuring his patients, what do you think a sub-standard trained OD might do with their experience from a wet lab? All the more reason to be against these kind of medical privilages for non-medical doctors, IMO.
 
JR said:
This is a very interesting article that appeared in a New Mexico publication.




ABQjournal

Monday, February 21, 2005

Optometric Physicians Are Trained for Eye Surgery

By Dr. Jennifer Planitz-Clatanoff
Optometric Physician
How would you feel about a proposal that allowed patients more freedom of choice and better access to quality eye care? How would you feel if that same proposal saved consumers millions while continuing the highest patient service standards?
House Bill 199 proposes to do just that, not take New Mexico down a "dangerous path" as suggested by Dr. Kathleen Blake, president of the New Mexico Medical Society.
HB 199 would allow optometric physicians in the state of New Mexico to perform minor surgical procedures that are currently being taught in optometry schools. These procedures are being successfully performed by optometric physicians in other states, saving consumers millions in unnecessary additional office visits.
Blake irresponsibly states that optometric physicians "are not trained to diagnose, manage, or treat such events." Let's examine the truth about the training of optometric physicians, and how closely it parallels medical, dental, and podiatric schools.
The curriculum at each of the 17 U.S. schools and colleges of optometry is continuously updated to keep up with the rapid pace of development in medical care, so that graduates can be well trained in the use of new technologies, including lasers and other medical treatments related to eye disorders.
The training of optometric physicians is quite similar to that of dentists and podiatrists: Training is very highly specialized in treating one area of the body, with a broad supportive background in general health and medicine. The curriculum followed in all 17 schools is quite similar to medical school, in which the first and second years of education are primarily classroom instruction in the basic sciences. That education provides a scientific underpinning in all areas of complete eyecare, which includes the foundation for surgical procedures and techniques.
During the third and fourth years of the curriculum, students in all programs apply classroom instruction in the clinical care setting provided through the schools' clinics and extern sites throughout the country.
At Northeastern State University College of Optometry in Oklahoma, for example, students complete more than 40,000 patient contacts each year. Each student is educated in the risks and benefits of surgical procedures. The state law of Oklahoma allows optometric physicians, who have been certified, to perform certain surgical and laser procedures, as authorized by the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners in Optometry.
Graduates of the professional optometric doctoral programs are taught to handle emergencies and provide patient care with one thought always in mind— patient health and safety comes first and is never compromised. The extensive certification process for laser and surgical procedures used in Oklahoma comes as part of the four-year professional curriculum and continuing post-graduate training for any optometric physicians that graduate from that program, in contrast to the medical model standard, which remains, "see one, do one, teach one."
Optometric physicians who perform laser surgery have done so safely and effectively for more than 15 years. To date, there have been no complaints by the public to either the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision or any other state regulatory board in regard to issues of malpractice or adverse outcomes resulting from optometric physicians performing laser surgery. The Veterans Administration has issued a written statement confirming that all laser surgical procedures performed by optometric physicians at VA facilities had acceptable outcomes with no complications.
This is reflected in the extraordinarily low malpractice premiums paid by optometric physicians as compared with ophthalmology. In contrast, an ophthalmologist's malpractice insurance, on average, costs 36 times more than an optometric physician practicing full scope.
Blake also incorrectly implied that optometric physicians do not prescribe drugs. Optometric physicians have been prescribing drugs in New Mexico for 20 years. Results: successful treatment of eye disease, no malpractice suits settled against optometry (can medicine say the same?), improved patient access to care and substantial savings of taxpayer dollars. Early detection of eye disease by optometric physicians using diagnostic drugs for the last 30 years has led only to the prevention of blindness— not heart attacks, disability or blindness, as is always the rallying cry of the medical lobby.
To mislead the public is both irresponsible and unethical. The truth is that optometric physicians have the background and training to address the relief of ocular abnormalities of New Mexicans, including the surgical and laser procedures for which they are trained and certified.
In a state where billboards beg for more medical professionals, it makes sense to utilize the ones that we have to their fullest potential.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jennifer Planitz-Clatanoff is immediate past president of the New Mexico Optometric Association.


Hey JR,
thanks for the article.....I enjoyed it.
 
mdkurt said:
Thanks for the offer--the most confusing word for me was "physician", which gets thrown out there right from the get-go. I'm confused, because the context has to do with optometrists. She could've been more clear for simple-minded people like myself and used the initials "O.D.", but I guess she forgot.
This amuses me to no end.......

Optometric Physician
Physicain and Surgeon of the Eye
Podiatric Physician
Physician and Surgeon of the Foot and Ankle

He He He.........Why even have this argument? It is never going to go anywhere....the Opthalmologist I shadow refers to his OD counterparts as Physicians.....And even if he didn't I really don't think that OD's care---as long as it is legal you can use it.....Case in point---Ohio mandates that somewhere in your signage (i.e. business card) you have to have OD somewhere......So you put Dr. So and So OD, Optometric Physician or Physician of the Eye-----both are legal as long as you have OD "somewhere." I just visited a interdiscplinary clinic in Kentucky that has 2 optos and 2 opthos working together...The sign on the door reads Dr. So and So, Dr. So and So, Dr So and So, and you guessed it----Dr. So and So....! No mention of MD or OD......This is the way it should be.......equal and mutually respectful of each other.........but I have to admit these stupid arguements are funny.... :laugh:
 
vtdo07 said:
I find it interesting that Loncifer posted a link relating to a medical doctor who turned out to be a bad apple. It appears he is missing the point of the entire thread, but only worked to strengthen the argument against ODs with surgical practice rights.
After years of training as a MD/DO there is always going to be some idiot which makes the medical community look bad. My point being that pointing out one bad apple does not justify giving certain practice rights to an OD but actually strengthens the argument for the need for fully qualified and trained medical doctors to provide surgical treatment.
Think about it, if a fully trained ophthamologist is injuring his patients, what do you think a sub-standard trained OD might do with their experience from a wet lab? All the more reason to be against these kind of medical privilages for non-medical doctors, IMO.

Go back and look at what my post was in response to. I realize that no profession is without bad apples, that was my point.
 
Top