One could argue that if a master's level NP or bachelor's level PA can Rx antibiotics and/or antihistamines to treat simple conditions, why not an OD? While there is some merit to this argument, I still say an OD does not receive adequate training in clinical pharmacology especially in terms of contraindications and interactions of various drugs. If your patient presents with allergic conjunctivitis, and you prescribe an antihistamine like Olopatadine, which to my knowledge doesn't have any significant contraindications or interactions, would you really and truly understand if there were contraindications? What if you prescribed a topical that interacted with an ACE inhibitor for HTN or a TCA/SSRI? What if your patient is menopausal and taking Estrogen supplements? What if the medication(s) you prescribed caused some detrimental side effects? If the eye itching and burning progressed into significant edema, would you know what to do? If the antibiotic you prescribed caused severe diarrhea with abdominal distension/bloating, epigastic pain, and dehydration, would you refer the pt. to the ER or PCP? Does an optometrist fully understand the various possible drug interactions and contraindications? What about side effects? Dangerous side effects? You can pick up a PDR and investigate, but chances are, most serious side effects and contraindications would be way beyond your knowledge and scope of practice. I highly doubt you would. I guess, in the scheme of things, simple RxPs for ODs doesn't bother me too much, but what you guys should be allowed to do should be highly restrictive and require significant additional education.
I would think as professionals ODs would want to avoid the liability doctors and dentists have, but being that optometrists seem to be actively seeking professional enhancement through expanded scopes of practice, you guys may very well be entering into an area where you really don't want to venture. With increased scopes of practice comes increased liability and culpability. Malpractice attorneys are going to love you guys: undertrained, enhanced scopes of practice, limited malpractice insurance coverage. Optometry will be ripe for litigation. I can just see the cross-examination in court.
Your place is not medical treatment; it is refraction. If you want to provide medical services to your patients, go back to school and obtain an MD or DO, or...an MSN and become an NP. I would feel more comfortable with an NP prescribing an antibiotic or antihistamine than I would an OD.
Psychologists also want RxPs. Soon audiologists will want to Rx meds to treat "basic" aural conditions like otitis media. They will argue that if an OD can Rx for conjunctivitis, why shouldn't they have RxPs to treat similar conditions like OM? I can understand the defensiveness most ODs have and view my comments as an attack, but honestly, an OD is not trained to be a physician and should not delve into practicing medicine without first obtaining an MD or DO. An OD is, and should remain, a professional technician whose job is to perform basic ocular exams and prescribe the appropriate corrective refraction. Your profession is an honourable, ethical, and skilled one, but it is not medicine, nor is it even comparable to medicine.
To quote Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in "Star Trek: First Contact", "The line must be drawn HERE!"