Actually, um, a DDS is a Doctor of Dental SURGERY. A DMD = Doctor of Dental MEDICINE. Even general dentists perform invasive medical procedures routinely, whereas ODs do not. The origins of dentistry lie in medicine, not education and opticianry like optometry. Maybe I'm not stating this correctly, but optometry does not originate from medicine; it has different origins, whereas dentistry has always been a companion of medicine. Dentistry has much more overlap with medicine than optometry does. Optometrists don't perform surgery and most likely never will (except in OK). Not all pods do surgery, but many do. Guess what? Those that do must go through a 2-4 year residency. A MEDICAL/SURGICAL residency on par with allo/osteo residencies -- not a year-long post OD CL residency or something like that. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but it's true. OMFS also undergo extensive PGY training, 4-5 years I believe.
I agree, I've often harped on the origins of optometry/ophthalomolgy myself, and have often stated that it is surprising to me that these fields do not educate along a similiar tract. However, origin isn't the issue, current training is more relevent, and future training is ultimately what should be discussed.
As a general rule, dental school is very similar to medical school in that the basic clinical sciences are integrated into a systemic medical approach. I don't really know much about OD training, but based on comments from a few folks on the forum, it seems like ODs don't receive a comprehensive medical education and therefore lack a systemic understanding of pathophys. Example, your patient might present with a recalcitrant, persistent cough. Without a comprehensive training in systemic medicine, a practitioner might first assume it's a respiratory problem (i.e., URI, asthmatic bronchitis, pneumonia), but in reality, it could be cardiac (cor pulmonale, congestive heart failure, cardiomegaly), digestive (gastroesphageal reflux disease), muscular (hernia, diaphragm problems), infectious (viral, allergic), neoplastic, and possibly, neurogenic/psychogenic.
OD school does not prepare us to deal with any of the above conditions. You think dental school does? Maybe as it relates to the oral cavity, but I'm sure it does'nt go much beyond that (DDS students help me out). That sounds alot like OD school, systemic conditions as it relates to the eye, and only the eye. You are mistaken if ANY OD alive (or dentist) would presume to comment on a systemic condition, unless is was causing sequlea in the eye. I think the analogy comparing dentistry to optometry is more accurate then you think, at least in practice it does.
The purpose of this Bill is not to punish ODs, but to curtail non-physician health care providers from inducing uninformed patients into thinking they are physicians, quasi-physicians, or have skills on par with physicians. Optometrists, for the most part, simply do their job and don't mess with people like that. However, take a look at some chiropractors who have ads in the phone book. What do you see? You see chiros wearing stethoscopes. You see an overempahsis on titles like DOCTOR and chiropractic PHYSICIAN. You see this a lot with naturopaths also. To a lesser extent, you see some abuses with mental health professionals who have doctorates in things like English, education, higher ed admin, etc, but master's in SW or psych and limited licenses. They use that doctoral title and create false percecptions with their patients/clients. That is what the Bill is designed to stop, not you guys who, for the most part, do your job competently and professionally.
HOWEVER, that being said, many OMDs and MDs in general, and some lawmakers and citizens out there, don't like your quest for professional expansion. You might continue to grow professionally, but I don't see ODs ever gaining complete RxPs or surgical authority or hospital privileges. In most states, ODs can only serve as hospital staff (like nurses, pharmacists, lab techs, etc.), not attending staff (like MDs, DOs, PhDs, dentists, and pods).
You bash citizen IQ in one post, and then list them as credible critic of OD skill in another? PhD's, did you mean MD, PhD's? Dentist? I have a friend, he's the only OMFS I know, he says not to consider dentists as any different then OD's, OMFS=ophthalmogy, dentistry=optometry, his analogy, not mine.. Your objectivity is lost here. I really don't see any downside to providing more widespread, competent eyecare (given a proper supply/demand ratio). There is a huge double standard in eyecare services. One: a competent OD provides complete, competent primary eyecare, and gets bashed because "you don't think I should be doing it". Two: Any garden-variety MD, PA, nurse, tech can launch any Rx they want at the poor unsuspecting eye patient, and, when the shoot hits the fan, have it deemed "within the standard of care", by the people from legal. What a friggin' crock!! Yet, OD's spend four years in focus on eyecare, we are second to none in ~95% of delivered ophthalmic care. That's one hell of a critical eye you got there, way to use the overwhelming burden of evidence. Logic?? what's that you say? do the math, I say! Did someone mention evidenced-based medicine? I'm to the point where I don't care what "many OMDs and MDs in general have to say about this, and some lawmakers and citizens out there" As far as I'm concerned, you don't know what the fudge you are talking about, and need to be TOLD WHAT TO DO!!! I would'nt trust your simple visual acuity notation, let alone your ability to assess my skill and training. The only other joe that speaks OD, is OMD, and he's too busy trying to keep a good man down.
And, no, I'm not in support of the Bill and I don't think it's going to affect professionals who act responsibly and honestly.