ophthalmology meeting

[PBEA]

Im sure some of you have read Art Epsteins comments about the AAO meeting, and how they continue to breed disrespect under the guise of "patient safety". I mean for heavens sake, they wont allow papers/posters that have an OD as a contributing author!!??!! What a bunch of insolent, pathetic crap. It appears as if ophthalmology's vision of the future does not include optometry (they are very obviously blinded by their own ignorance, or greed). Its my feeling that this should only strengthen our resolve in determining our own future. That would include defending, promoting, and expanding our practices to include any treatment for which we have been trained. Through education, and legislation, we will continue providing the highest level of care that our patients deserve. I know Im stirring the pot but this kind of self-serving horseapple should not go without some discussion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Creightonite]

actually I saw that at the meeting as well. I first noticed OD discrimination during 2005 meeting.

I think it is a response to ODs trying to do lasiks and other things. AAO protecting their territory and have every single right to do so. If an OD does a lasik and if there is a complication, then it is MD not an OD who ends up cleaning up the mess and dealing with a lot of BS.

I think it is unfair to ban optometrists from attending/presenting at these meetings though. Because different people with different expriences always can bring something new to the discussion. It is almost like a professional racism to ban a certain specialty from attending.

 

[brendang]

it is my understanding that ODs have, in the past, been invited to and have even lectured at (topics relating to CL, optics, etc...) major ophthalmic meetings. unfortunately, some have overstepped their boundaries by stating that they have an equal right to procedures because they have attended and even participated at MD meetings. it only seems "fair" that if ODs are going to abuse the academic relationship with MDs, they should not be considered equals and privy to our meetings...

 

[still_confused]

MDs will never consider ODs as equals but if ODs were involved in the research to be presented, why shouldnt they recieve credit? If they want to eradicate OD contributions to eyecare then they shouldnt perform any procedure or use any information that could arised from optometry research (so no more refractions). Now who is in danger? ODs will on the otherhand, gather from all sources to ensure that they could give thier patient the best care that is available. MDs teamed up with the OD to write the paper for a reason, he/she felt they had something to contribute, give credit where credit is due, even if MDs hate ODs.


No sane OD will consider themselves to be able to do procedures just because they went to an overpriced meeting with some guy lecturing from a powerpoint. Those that do Lasik were trained, they didnt learn it by reading the manuel.

 

[DrEyeBall]

No sane OD will consider themselves to be able to do procedures just because they went to an overpriced meeting with some guy lecturing from a powerpoint. Those that do Lasik were trained, they didnt learn it by reading the manuel.[/QUOTE]

You hit the nail on the head. I think many of the MDs believe that the vast majority of ODs are thoughtful, responsible and very much patient oriented. It is the small group of ODs that are pushing for for the ability to do things they have not been trained to do and should not be doing. Whether you think the MDs are actually trying to protect their patients or just protect their "turf", it does not make it any less true that some ODs want to do things they should not be doing.

The other part of the arguement is that the vast majority of ODs who do not believe in this course of action sit quitly on the sidelines and do not oppose these actions. When an editor of a najor peer reviewed OD journal writes an editorial that any "monkey" can be taught to do cataract surgery and that ODs should be able to do it, why doesn't anyone write a letter responding to that stupidity??

The AAO action was designed to try and force the majority of ODs to wake up and make their voices heard.

I am not saying I agree with the approach but that is the logic behind it. Cooler heads on both sides (which ironically are the majority of people involved) need to figure out how to solve these issues for the benefits of our patients.

 

[exmike]

Im sure some of you have read Art Epsteins comments about the AAO meeting, and how they continue to breed disrespect under the guise of "patient safety". I mean for heavens sake, they wont allow papers/posters that have an OD as a contributing author!!??!! What a bunch of insolent, pathetic crap. It appears as if ophthalmology's vision of the future does not include optometry (they are very obviously blinded by their own ignorance, or greed). Its my feeling that this should only strengthen our resolve in determining our own future. That would include defending, promoting, and expanding our practices to include any treatment for which we have been trained. Through education, and legislation, we will continue providing the highest level of care that our patients deserve. I know Im stirring the pot but this kind of self-serving horseapple should not go without some discussion.

and you're telling me that OD's trying to expand into surgery isnt "self-serving horseapple". Correct me if I'm wrong, but OD's tried to expand their scope first, THEN the OMD's locked them out of the AAO meeting. You reap what you sow.

I have a feeling that if organized optometry pledged to not expand their scope, they would be welcomed with open arms to all things ophthalmological.

 

[POJO]

"....I have a feeling that if organized optometry pledged to not expand their scope, they would be welcomed with open arms to all things ophthalmological...."

This is so much horsesh*t. I don't care about them locking me out of the meeting. What I do care about is ophthalmology feigning offense on the surgical issue which is a ploy to deflect the true battle of"

1. Ophthalmologic led and sponsored legislation to roll back optometric privileges in several venues.

2. Physician inspired discrimination against optometrists on medical panels.

3. Ophthalmologic dispensing.

All of the above occurred long before optometric inquiry into surgical procedures. While I don't think too much of surgical privileges myself, I also think that ophthalmologists should not get on their high horse and cast stones at optometry.

Let the students on this forum understand that much of this debate is a response to opthalmologic interference and intrusion into optometric practice. Period! If you as students believe this horsesh*t then you've got to open your blinders.

 

[luckyfool]

I agree that if that very few of those fanatical ODs hadn't tried to propose to do certain procedures then this whole mess wouldn't have started. I certainly hope all the OMDs aren't this hostile toward ODs, and vice versa.

 

[POJO]

...I certainly hope all the OMDs aren't this hostile toward ODs, and vice versa....

luckyfool,

I'm not sure if you are a student of optometry or medicine, but I have to tell you that cordial relations only exist if there is an economic advantage for the ophthalmologists. Once that economic advantage is gone, these same opthalmologic friends will easily transform to the meanest nastiest enemy you can imagine. You just don't know what they say behind your back.

 

[still_confused]

The AAO action was designed to try and force the majority of ODs to wake up and make their voices heard.

As long as the OMDs continue to belittle the ODs with ridiculous legislations (blocking us from using titles, insurance, panels, regressing our scope etc) the majority has no reason to speak up. While they may not agree with the "rogue" ODs running around with a laser, they are still colleagues that are fighting the "enemy." As long as the omds continue to treat us as the enemy (justified or not) ods will not disown those that are speaking on our behalf.

If anything, by trying to remove our posters, the majority of the ODs are "fed" more propaganda by the fringe elements that the OMDs wants to replace us with refraction monkeys.

From my viewpoint it comes down to a compromise from the MDs. Why? Because you guys have everything so there is nothing we can give you that you dont already have. If there is less discrimination, rollback legislations, and the childish "you dont know anything because you didnt go to med school." Then we can accept the MDs as non-enemies and reign in the fringe OD elements.

Unfortunately, while the majority of ODs may not approve of some of the legislation their collegues are proposing, i doubt the same is true for the omds. Is there a silent majority of the OMDs that want to embrace optometry and not want to control or take away our mode of practice? Do the majority of the MDs want to see optometry strive? Im guessing "**** no."

On this board optometry students are faced with MDs (and wannabes) that convince us that MDs want to eradicate our profession. Even anti OMD posters here want to work with MDs, but many MDs refuse to even consider it . Sure we may not be qualified and we didnt go to med school, but optometry is here to stay, and this "war" isnt going to end because you tell us to. I respect MDs, a lot, but if they are going to destroy my profession, then I must support those that are williing to fight for on my behalf.

 

[luckyfool]

luckyfool,

I'm not sure if you are a student of optometry or medicine, but I have to tell you that cordial relations only exist if there is an economic advantage for the ophthalmologists. Once that economic advantage is gone, these same opthalmologic friends will easily transform to the meanest nastiest enemy you can imagine. You just don't know what they say behind your back.

this happens everywhere, from small businesses to big corporations. talking smack is a form a life in the real world you know. go beyond and become better at what you do. they can talk all they want but you still go home with the cash in your pocket. good day.

 

[Ben Chudner]

unfortunately, some have overstepped their boundaries by stating that they have an equal right to procedures because they have attended and even participated at MD meetings. it only seems "fair" that if ODs are going to abuse the academic relationship with MDs, they should not be considered equals and privy to our meetings...

This is absolutely false. I have heard this point made on SDN as well as in other forums, yet there is not one shread of evidence to prove that any OD stood up before a legislative body and claimed that they should have an equal right to procedures because they attended or even participated at MD meetings. I have already asked on the OMD forum for anyone to produce a transcript to prove this ridiculous theory. As of yet, no one has. I have good friends that have testisfied on behalf of several state optometric boards, including Oklahoma. No one has ever heard an OD make that claim. This decision to ban OD's was made shortly after OMD's lost a major battle in Oklahoma. Most OD's believe the ban was retaliation for that. I have no idea why it was done, but I do know that the AAO would prefer to have people share your unfounded belief.

 

[DrEyeBall]

luckyfool,

I'm not sure if you are a student of optometry or medicine, but I have to tell you that cordial relations only exist if there is an economic advantage for the ophthalmologists. Once that economic advantage is gone, these same opthalmologic friends will easily transform to the meanest nastiest enemy you can imagine. You just don't know what they say behind your back.

And that is why you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The MDs with whom you talk about having great relationships do so because you send them patients and they send them back to you for fee splitting, or kickbacks or whatever you want to call it. Make no mistake, they are the ones who talk behind your back. They do not have the testicular fortitude to tell you what they want to tell you because they do not want to lose your business. Is that really a "cordial" relationship? Is that really the type of "friend" you want?

I think most MDs can and do have good working relationships with ODs and vice-versa. These two groups work well with each other in one-on-one relationships but thet distrust each other as a group. As an MD, I work well with the ODs in my area. Many send me patients because they know I do a good job. They also know I will not fee split or share postop management because I view that as my responsibility. Those who can not understand that probably do not send patients but I do not care. I can drive a smaller car or live in a smaller house. I will not sell out my responsibility to my patients.

I think there are many MDs like myself. I do not care if ODs are on insurance plans or see any patient that wants to see them. I do feel that surgery is beyond the scope of optometry and think trying to get that scope of practice through legislation and not through education is wrong. Your rant about MDs as a group is just helping to fuel the fire.

 

[exmike]

This is so much horsesh*t. I don't care about them locking me out of the meeting. What I do care about is ophthalmology feigning offense on the surgical issue which is a ploy to deflect the true battle of"

1. Ophthalmologic led and sponsored legislation to roll back optometric privileges in several venues.

2. Physician inspired discrimination against optometrists on medical panels.

3. Ophthalmologic dispensing.

All of the above occurred long before optometric inquiry into surgical procedures. While I don't think too much of surgical privileges myself, I also think that ophthalmologists should not get on their high horse and cast stones at optometry.

Let the students on this forum understand that much of this debate is a response to opthalmologic interference and intrusion into optometric practice. Period! If you as students believe this horsesh*t then you've got to open your blinders.

i meant all things ophthalmological as in meetings, etc which was the topic of the OP

 

[POJO]

i meant all things ophthalmological as in meetings, etc which was the topic of the OP

exmike,

What drives your response is the underlying bias against optometry which needs to be addressed as well as the literal response you gave.

 

[POJO]

And that is why you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The MDs with whom you talk about having great relationships do so because you send them patients and they send them back to you for fee splitting, or kickbacks or whatever you want to call it. Make no mistake, they are the ones who talk behind your back. They do not have the testicular fortitude to tell you what they want to tell you because they do not want to lose your business. Is that really a "cordial" relationship? Is that really the type of "friend" you want?

I think most MDs can and do have good working relationships with ODs and vice-versa. These two groups work well with each other in one-on-one relationships but thet distrust each other as a group. As an MD, I work well with the ODs in my area. Many send me patients because they know I do a good job. They also know I will not fee split or share postop management because I view that as my responsibility. Those who can not understand that probably do not send patients but I do not care. I can drive a smaller car or live in a smaller house. I will not sell out my responsibility to my patients.

I think there are many MDs like myself. I do not care if ODs are on insurance plans or see any patient that wants to see them. I do feel that surgery is beyond the scope of optometry and think trying to get that scope of practice through legislation and not through education is wrong. Your rant about MDs as a group is just helping to fuel the fire.

I'm being kind. I don't think there are any such animal as a friendly or cordial ophthalmologist. In the back of their minds, they loathe optometrists in general and only talk them to for the consult. In general(!), most ophthalmologists make poor CE lecturers for optometrists. Another sign of their contempt for optometry in general. Optometry needs to be independent and needs to see the danger that confronts them from opticianry and ophthalmology.

 

[DrEyeBall]

I'm being kind. I don't think there are any such animal as a friendly or cordial ophthalmologist. In the back of their minds, they loathe optometrists in general and only talk them to for the consult. In general(!), most ophthalmologists make poor CE lecturers for optometrists. Another sign of their contempt for optometry in general. Optometry needs to be independent and needs to see the danger that confronts them from opticianry and ophthalmology.

I am just wondering who you think is creating a good part of this problem when people like you make such sweeping and disparaging comments about a whole profession. Is it at least somewhat possible that the disdain that you feel from ophthalmologists is directed at you and not your whole profession. Your views are pretty militant. Who is that helping. I work on several large committees at the state and national level. I do not hear the types of comments you think people are making about your profession. Sure there are some out there that do. There are some bad apples everywhere. You seem to be one of them.

 

[POJO]

I am just wondering who you think is creating a good part of this problem when people like you make such sweeping and disparaging comments about a whole profession. Is it at least somewhat possible that the disdain that you feel from ophthalmologists is directed at you and not your whole profession. Your views are pretty militant. Who is that helping. I work on several large committees at the state and national level. I do not hear the types of comments you think people are making about your profession. Sure there are some out there that do. There are some bad apples everywhere. You seem to be one of them.

What constitutes a bad apple in your mind? Someone who is militant? Someone who is a good clinician but militant? someone who is a bad clinician and militant? Or just militant??? Is it the embarrassment that this kind of truth is more prevalent than you would like to admit? I"m militant about optometry staying out of surgical world, but I'm also chagrined that ophthalmology is using the surgical issue to beat down optometry. To the students, ophthalmology has always been like this and this is just a convenient tool to beat us down with. On the national level, the American Academy of Ophthalmology has mobilized nationally to roll back optometry privileges in all of the states. That is what I'm raililng about.

If you are so connected and think optometry is so good as a partner, why is the AAO so involved in rolling back optometric privileges that are now set in the states?

 

[DrEyeBall]

Exactly which privileges do you mean?

 

[POJO]

Exactly which privileges do you mean?

1. Treatment of glaucoma with topical medications
2. Post operative care
3. Treatment of viral eye conditions
4. Caring for certain kinds of patients.

 

[DrEyeBall]

1. Treatment of glaucoma with topical medications
2. Post operative care
3. Treatment of viral eye conditions
4. Caring for certain kinds of patients.

What are the "certain" kind of patients about which you refer?

I feel strongly that the person who does the surgery should be following their postop patients. I have no hard set feelings about how long a period that should be for but I think it is wrong for any surgeon to operate on a patient and then turn that care over to someone else right after the surgery. If you want to argue that with modern cataract techniques that care can be turned over faster than with extracaps, I will not argue. I am very much opposed to that care being turned over the day after surgery. As a surgeon you have that responsibility to your patient. Maybe that time is a week or 10 days, I do not know but it is wrong to operate on someone and then never see them again. I am sure there are cirumstances where returning to the operating surgeon is very difficutl but you and I knwo that is not the t ypical reason for postop management being split.

I have no arguement on the viral issue.

The glaucoma issue is tougher. If I had glaucoma, I would be seen by a fellowship trained glaucoma MD who sees glaucoma all day long. If I feel that way for me, why wouldn't I do the same for my patients? Why wouldn't you?

 

[POJO]

Dr Eyeball,

Thanks for your opinion. That is your personal opinion. You asked me about rollbacks. The testimony in the past was supportive in a few(!) cases. But the current effort is to rollback these advances. That's a fact. Let's not confuse the issue of your personal opinion and organized ophthalmology. Then might I suspect that you would testify for or support rollback?

 

[POJO]

.....
The glaucoma issue is tougher. If I had glaucoma, I would be seen by a fellowship trained glaucoma MD who sees glaucoma all day long. If I feel that way for me, why wouldn't I do the same for my patients? Why wouldn't you?

With this logic, why do general comprehensive ophthalmology insist on treating complicated glaucoma patients. For that matter, why at all? Will you be doing a glaucoma fellowship after residency?

 

[DrEyeBall]

Dr Eyeball,

Thanks for your opinion. That is your personal opinion. You asked me about rollbacks. The testimony in the past was supportive in a few(!) cases. But the current effort is to rollback these advances. That's a fact. Let's not confuse the issue of your personal opinion and organized ophthalmology. Then might I suspect that you would testify for or support rollback?

I am not sure what you mean about a rollback.

The other issue I have is that the general public has no idea about the "qualifications" of the professionals that they see. I do not mean OD vs MD as the only example. It is even more important as it relates to people who are specialty trained vs those that are not.

Shouldn't patients know what training their doctro has had? Wouldn't you want to know the guy doing your retina laser had additional training and specializes in the treatment? While not every retina surgeon will do a better job than a general ophthalmologist, on average most will. Is it not possible that people who have spent a large part of their postgrad training seeing glaucoma patients will do a better job than those who take some courses after school? I have NO problem with OD treating glaucoma if there patients understand these issues.

 

[POJO]

Roll back are efforts to take back the privileges already stated in the law.

 

[DrEyeBall]

With this logic, why do general comprehensive ophthalmology insist on treating complicated glaucoma patients. For that matter, why at all? Will you be doing a glaucoma fellowship after residency?

I do not know and I think it is wrong. I am a subspecialist and I do not treat patients outside my area of expertise. I think I do a better job at treating those patients and think that other people who have advanced training do a better job at treating their patients. I send them all to them. I also do not do procedures that I can not handle the complications of even if they are fairly "simple" in nature. My two cents.

 

[POJO]

If medicine wants to claim the "Dr" title, then it should be enforced on dentistry, chiropractic, and all professors of the sciences and liberal arts. Just want to make it clear who the "doctors". This is a farce of a law.

 

[DrEyeBall]

Roll back are efforts to take back the privileges already stated in the law.

Guess it depends on the procedure in question. Just ebcause it was passed, does not mean it is in the best interest of the patient

 

[POJO]

When it gets down to it, all of the anti-optometry efforts by ophthalmology (except for surgical scope) is purely political horse play.

 

[POJO]

Guess it depends on the procedure in question. Just ebcause it was passed, does not mean it is in the best interest of the patient

If you want to know what ticks off optometrists, is that kind of talk. Pure political puffery. I hope that the students can see that the political agenda of ophthalmology is apparent, the destruction of optometry!

 

[DrEyeBall]

When it gets down to it, all of the anti-optometry efforts by ophthalmology (except for surgical scope) is purely political horse play.

That may or may not be true. The efforts of organized optometry into surgery and postop care are not helping the issue either. I would say there is plenty of blame to go around. I will repeat what I posted earlier...your disparaging comments about the profession as a whole do not help. If you want to make claims about the people who are leading these efforts, fine but do you really think every MD is at fault for this? DO you think there are some ODs that are hurting the field as well? DO your comments help to fix the problem?

 

[DrEyeBall]

If you want to know what ticks off optometrists, is that kind of talk. Pure political puffery. I hope that the students can see that the political agenda of ophthalmology is apparent, the destruction of optometry!

That is horse**** My comments were not directed at optometry in general and although you and I can not solve this on our own, you fail to show any interest in helping the situation not matter how small that effort may be.

I hope the students realize that your line of reasoning and action will help nobody.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[POJO]

That may or may not be true. The efforts of organized optometry into surgery and postop care are not helping the issue either. I would say there is plenty of blame to go around. I will repeat what I posted earlier...your disparaging comments about the profession as a whole do not help. If you want to make claims about the people who are leading these efforts, fine but do you really think every MD is at fault for this? DO you think there are some ODs that are hurting the field as well? DO your comments help to fix the problem?

Optometry doesn't need ophthalmology to define itself. It is independent. I believe both of our comments may be inflammatory, but I didn't want our students on this forum be colored by your one sided comments on this either. You are one sided on this as I am. Now it's a stand off. Both sides are expressed.

 

[POJO]

That is horse**** My comments were not directed at optometry in general and although you and I can not solve this on our own, you fail to show any interest in helping the situation not matter how small that effort may be.

I hope the students realize that your line of reasoning and action will help nobody.

Nice chatting with you.

Ok. Now we're getting some place. If you want a truce, then a truce will occur:

1. Optometry not going into surgery,
2. Ophthalmology not rolling back any(!) privileges!!!!
3. Membership in medical panels.


These are the issues that will define a truce.

 

[POJO]

That is horse**** My comments were not directed at optometry in general and although you and I can not solve this on our own, you fail to show any interest in helping the situation not matter how small that effort may be.

I hope the students realize that your line of reasoning and action will help nobody.

Nice chatting with you.

Hmmm, cut and run.....Why did you post on this forum in the first place. Optometric posts on the ophthalmology forum have not necessarily been met with open arms either. Is this forum fallow ground for your views?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I do not know and I think it is wrong. I am a subspecialist and I do not treat patients outside my area of expertise. I think I do a better job at treating those patients and think that other people who have advanced training do a better job at treating their patients. I send them all to them. I also do not do procedures that I can not handle the complications of even if they are fairly "simple" in nature. My two cents.

I don't think anyone can argue your point here. I do wonder, however, how many glaucoma patients actually need your superior skills? I would suggest that a large partion of glaucoma patients can be treated just fine by ODs or general MDs.

As for comanagemen - if you want to do the entire post-op, that's fine. Just make sure that the referring OD knows that you'll send the patient back when you're done with them. That's the real reason behind comanaging. The reimbursement for the -55 modifier sucks under medicare.

And POJO, I'm probably the most OD-friendly medical student you will ever find. That being said, the way you're talking makes even me want to rush over to the MD camp. C'mon man, chill out and think before you post.

 

[DrEyeBall]

I don't think anyone can argue your point here. I do wonder, however, how many glaucoma patients actually need your superior skills? I would suggest that a large partion of glaucoma patients can be treated just fine by ODs or general MDs.

As for comanagemen - if you want to do the entire post-op, that's fine. Just make sure that the referring OD knows that you'll send the patient back when you're done with them. That's the real reason behind comanaging. The reimbursement for the -55 modifier sucks under medicare.

And POJO, I'm probably the most OD-friendly medical student you will ever find. That being said, the way you're talking makes even me want to rush over to the MD camp. C'mon man, chill out and think before you post.

I agree with you on the glaucoma. I am not a glaucoma specialist. I do not treat glaucoma. I do think that a large number could be treated by OD or MDs. I know that my knowledge in my area was improved by extra training and my upkeep on the current literature in that field. I do not keep up with the glaucoma literature and have no desire to do so. Ask many of the glaucoma specialists to be honest and they will tell you they are sent patients who have been treated far too long by someone who did not knwo or was not willing to refer out. Many of them will not say this because they do not want to insult their referral base but it is true. Obviously, that is not every patient with glaucoma or every doc who treats glaucoma but that is an example where both ODs and MDs could improve.

POJO - I do not think it is the ODs that are not welcome on the MD sites. It may be you. You clearly have an agenda and that agenda does not include trying to find common ground, find what will help our patients most and trying to mend some fences. I posted here because I do think that there are many more ODs and MDs that see we can work together than those who do not. You seem not to be one of them. You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem. I hope the future ODs on this site see that. I have not attacked yoru profession but you can not refrain from attacking mine.

 

[POJO]

Dr Eyeball,

A common ground can be achieved. I might have been hasty. But the question to you still remains unanswered. Since you intimated your leadership standing in organized ophthalmology, what would you do to "heal" the rift? I don't say this lightly. I think there is a rift.

 

[POJO]

Since neither organized optometry or ophthalmology seems to participate in this kind of discussion, what can the the individual optometrist or optometry student do to garner some kind of reconciliation with ophthalmology? Is it possible?

 

[DrEyeBall]

Since neither organized optometry or ophthalmology seems to participate in this kind of discussion, what can the the individual optometrist or optometry student do to garner some kind of reconciliation with ophthalmology? Is it possible?

I do not know what the answer to your first question is. I have pushed for state bills that seem to be compromises but I have been frustrated by the people on both sides of the "aisle" (and I do not mean democrat or republican) that are unwilling to bend. I participate in research with both MDs and ODs. I do talks at OD meetings and I do them without the goal for them to send me more patients but for them to be able to better treat patients within my subspecialty area and I learn from them too.

As to your second question. I would say the first effort is to stop being so confrontational here. We can all tone down the rhetoric. We may not agree on everything but I am sure there is more we can agree on than there is we do not. We have rotations for ODs in my practice and I am very open with them about what I think they should or should not be doing and why. My goal is to help them not keep them down or build a co-management relationship.

I guess the other thing you can do is try to assume that the other guy is not waking up each morning trying to defeat you and drive you out of business. Most MDs are thoughtful and actually try to do the right thing, just like the majority of ODs.

 

[DrEyeBall]

One other idea. I have found that the more ODs I interact with, the more I appreciate their interest and training as well as the fact that they all do not want to do cataract surgery! Those contacts have kept me from joining the battle against ODs. Why not be one of those guys and learn more about the MDs in your area and both find out they may not be the evil people you think they are and let them find out the same about you.

 

[bournehall]

You're right, not out of a manual but from a weekend course at the local Hilton.

Those that do Lasik were trained, they didnt learn it by reading the manuel.

 

[bournehall]

Whooo, I now feel alot better knowing that what I can or cannot do depends on your blessing.

We have rotations for ODs in my practice and I am very open with them about what I think they should or should not be doing and why.

 

[DrEyeBall]

Whooo, I now feel alot better knowing that what I can or cannot do depends on your blessing.

That was a smart answer

If you come to train with me on an elective rotation, I am going to teach you about my sub-specialty. That includes my opinion abut what you should or should not be comfortable treating based on that training, where you are an MD or OD.

Please post another brilliant response for us to read.

 

[sco1styear]

That was a smart answer

If you come to train with me on an elective rotation, I am going to teach you about my sub-specialty. That includes my opinion abut what you should or should not be comfortable treating based on that training, where you are an MD or OD.

Please post another brilliant response for us to read.

Although that post was sarcastic, I do have to agree. You have made some decent points in several of your posts. But although you seem to think you are "friends" with optometry, I find that underneath, you still are placing yourself above many others. Most everyone can sometimes think a little too highly of themselves, so maybe that is something you should re-examine - I know I have my points I should work on. One of the hardest lessons to learn is that it does not help your points nor gain you any respect.
I fully understand that you are extremely educated and knowledgeable. But, thinking your input is so far above others (you may not have explicitly said so but it was implied with your mentioning of your opinion of our training and capabilities ) is inaccurate, at best. No one likes to be talked down to.

 

[DrEyeBall]

Although that post was sarcastic, I do have to agree. You have made some decent points in several of your posts. But although you seem to think you are "friends" with optometry, I find that underneath, you still are placing yourself above many others. Most everyone can sometimes think a little too highly of themselves, so maybe that is something you should re-examine - I know I have my points I should work on. One of the hardest lessons to learn is that it does not help your points nor gain you any respect.
I fully understand that you are extremely educated and knowledgeable. But, thinking your input is so far above others (you may not have explicitly said so but it was implied with your mentioning of your opinion of our training and capabilities ) is inaccurate, at best. No one likes to be talked down to.

There is a saying, "it just depends on which side of the fence you stand as to how smart or stupid you are".

WHat that means is that in your own little area of the world, you may be very smart but in someone else's you are not. My point has been that we all all very well educated. Some are more educated in certain areas than others. I have learned much from my OD friends and the relationships. Am I smarter in my specific field than the students (OD or MD) who come to learn from me? I hope I am. Not because my IQ is higher but because I have been practicing and researching in my field and have more experience. I also am quick to point out things that I do not know or can learn from them. I would fully expect to be the "student" in their office.