I am just wondering if any of u guys know how the optometry program goes in UK? I dont think Optometrists are considered "doctors" in UK, are they? If anyone knows anything about it, let me know
Thanks
Thanks
Optometry in UK
- Thread starter ppa93
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 0
Hmm.. I think their "Opticians" are in a higher level than the north american opticians. I 've heard but not sure that their opticians has a "optician degree" which is a bachelor's degree. Hong Kong doens't have an OD degree, they have Bachelor of Optometry degree; since HK follows UK rule, I guess it's the same for UK.
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 518
- Reaction score
- 0
ppa93 said:
1. UK practitioners were once (and may still be called in some cirlces) ophthalmic opticians.
2. Gradutaes attended a 4 yr college course and then were granted a Bacheler degree. They could then sit for their registration exam.
3. I think the current degree is Bachelor Optometry. It is still a 4 year college degree not unlike the medical or dental degrees.
4. In the UK, the high schools are different than in the USA. Many students graduate when they are 16 or 17.
5. The 4 year Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery (BM, BCh) is the equivalent degree. Most do not get an MD degree, because the MD degree is a post graduate "academic" degree with significant further study.
6. In the UK "Mister" or "Ms" is a salutation usually and was actually the salutation geven to physicians and dentists.
Richard
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2005
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
ppa93 said:
In the UK, education is overseen by the College of Optometrists (CO). There are 8 optometry programs in the UK, including one in Ireland. All first degrees in the primary health professions are at the bachelor's level. Only physicians are addressed as "Doctor" - optometrists and surgeons (including ophthos) use Mr/Mrs/Ms.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2002
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 0
Richard_Hom said:
Optometrists in the UK are also known as "ophthalmic opticians". Whilst the profession tends to use the title "optometrist", it hasn't really caught on with the public, who tend to call them "opticians". Training is 4 years long and consists of a 3 year bachelor's degree and a 1 year "pre-registration year" which is the equivalent of a residency. At the end of this training, pre-registration optometrists are eligible to sit the professional qualifying exams (10 in total) which are modelled on other post-graduate medical exams (with the same appalling first-time pass rate of about 30%). If they are successful, they gain the right to register with the General Optical Council and can practice optometry. Exceptions to this training are in Scotland, where it takes an extra year, and in Manchester, where one can take an extra year to gain a "master of optometry" instead of a bachelor's degree. BTW Most people tend to finish high school when they're 18.
Optometrists in the UK are not considered "doctors", but this is unsurprising: like their US counterparts, they haven't attended medical school.
Physicians in the UK use the title "doctor", but surgeons still use the title "mister" (after they pass their membership exams for the relevant Royal College). This distinction is historical, as surgery started as a trade.
The bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery degree takes 6 years for school leavers. It is shorter for graduates (generally 4 years, though sometimes 5).
Then I believe it isnt fair for US optometrists who had to go to school for about 8 years to obtain OD which is equalvalent to UK bachelor. Even though Bacehlor and doctor sound different, they are equalvalent because UK optometrists can do anything US optometrists can. Same rules applied to Medical doctor or dentists. Most doctors in UK obtain bachelor degree only and they can sit the exam here if they wanna practice medicine here. In other words, Bachelor in UK is equal to Doctor in USA. How could that be happening? That is so unfair for USA optometrists?MPS said:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
You must remeber we specialise in the sciences at 16 - 18 (for us who want to do optometry/medicine). We are at final year USA undergrad standard for Pre med at aged 18 .. u guys start at 18 and it takes 4 years. please remeber by 18 we have taken GCSE'S at 16 Then AS levels at 17 Then A levels at 18 . these are national exams and are very difficult !! we squeeze 4 years of your sciences at college level into 2 years.
If you think its unfair, send some kids who wanna do optometry aged 16 into our system and ask then which they prefer. MPS are u at optometry school in uk ?? i have been accepted to Cambridge (Anglia Poly), Aston, City(london), Bradford , cardiff (yay!) and rejected from Glasgow . .. thing is my family is moving to states : ( . but i actually cant wait to get down to pre med studies over there !
If you think its unfair, send some kids who wanna do optometry aged 16 into our system and ask then which they prefer. MPS are u at optometry school in uk ?? i have been accepted to Cambridge (Anglia Poly), Aston, City(london), Bradford , cardiff (yay!) and rejected from Glasgow . .. thing is my family is moving to states : ( . but i actually cant wait to get down to pre med studies over there !
well, I dont think four years of our sciences are the same as A level. They are the same as SAT subject tests (SATII). I have a lot of cousins who studied in UK. The things they learned in A level are a piece of cake for me (when I was a sophmore and I didnt even take that many sciences either). They dont even go in details. Plus, we only have two years of sciences if u havent noticed that because the other two years in College are General education (which is full of bull****s). I still dont understand why would a bachelor and doctor degree be the same? It doesnt make sense at all.Mixer_Vik said:
And also in A level, you just have to choose three subjects. You can choose bio chem and math. Where is Physics? where do u learn physics? if u take physics, then there might be a subject missing. how can they be well prepared for the profession? Since each person in UK takes different subject, they will know different things only. How do UK med schools or dental schools handle those? It seems like british students are very disqualified
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
ppa93 said:
It does not seem to me that British optometry students are any more disqualified, unqualified or under qualified for that matter than students anywhere else. They have a different system there than we do in the US; not necessarily a worse system, nor a better system, just different.
To be quite honest, I am not a huge fan of the American system of education. With no standardized tests required for graduation of high school (or college for that matter) the curriculum and quality of education varies widely from school to school. I attended an excellent high school, and worked hard to graduate, and yet, in the end, my high school diploma means no more than a diploma from a really substandard school. I mean sure I had to take the state wide Graduation Test but in my school this test was seen as nothing more than a joke. We had had a 100% first time pass rate on most sections for several years. To be honest, I think a monkey could have passed that test (of course it would require a little training).
I think that high school, for students not lucky enough to attend a good school, and barring the social aspects, ends up being a huge waste of time. With no standardized system of separating people with varying levels of academic ability, and societal pressure on even the most academically inept student to graduate, I would venture to say that the curriculum in many high schools ends up watered down. As a result much of what should have been not only learned, but mastered in the high school classroom such as English, history, foreign language etc.. has to be repeated in college (unless you AP out) so that the University can be sure that its graduates are qualified.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2002
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not going to argue the case for the A-level system as I didn't go through it. I went to school in Australia and I did Maths, Physics, Chemistry, English and Ancient History in my final 2 years of high school. I then did 4 years of optometry, which included general education subjects. I'm now at medical school in the UK, and whilst I'm on the 4 year fast-track program for graduates at Cambridge University, we share lectures with the undergraduates. Most of the undergraduates have four or more A levels, and though some may not have studied Maths or Physics at A level, they're given no quarter. The course, along with that at Oxford, has the reputation for being the most rigorous in the country for the basic sciences. I think you'd be surprised at what these "disqualified" (sic) students are capable of.
Despite the fact that I'm doing a medical degree that requires an undergraduate degree for admittance, I still get an MB BChir at the end of it (and not an MD). The MD was only awarded universally at US medical schools following the Flexner report, which effectively modelled the US medical education system on that of Germany. Taught degrees, such as the US MD (and hence the OD) are effectively considered undergraduate level degrees in the UK, even if they require another undergraduate degree for admittance.
Despite the fact that I'm doing a medical degree that requires an undergraduate degree for admittance, I still get an MB BChir at the end of it (and not an MD). The MD was only awarded universally at US medical schools following the Flexner report, which effectively modelled the US medical education system on that of Germany. Taught degrees, such as the US MD (and hence the OD) are effectively considered undergraduate level degrees in the UK, even if they require another undergraduate degree for admittance.
How about SATII subject tests? or SAT tests? we do have standardized tests and if u wanna go to a good university, you need to get good score on those. People who go to a JC are different stories. What I am saying that we do have standardized tests. Thats why some people have to work after graduating from HS because they cannot go to University. Some go to a JC or Community College. if you havent noticed that, AP arent widely accepted. I was trying to use my AP credits for the prerequisites for Optometry schools, but they said no you cannot use that. Why?UABopt said:
I just want to make sure one thing. Can British Optometrists take a test here and practice here? or do they have to go back to school as advanced standing?
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 518
- Reaction score
- 0
ppa93 said:
Dear ppa93,
The scopes of practice of optometrists in the UK and in the USA are not equivalent.
Richard
To tell you the truth, we will be learning basic sciences again in Med school or dental school or even Optometry school. I do not think MD is an undergrad degree because you can even get PhD MD joint degree if u can work hard. Of course they are conisered undergrad degree in the UK because UK always want to look down on US education system as always. I also noticed that most of the TV series show that how British doctors messed up operation or even X ray for that matter because we, Americans, believe that they are under qualified.MPS said:
There are lots of misunderstandings in UK about US optometry. I was talking to my aunt the other day and told her that i will be an optometrist. She was like that is a technician and they arent doctors at all. She even told me that they have low status here because ophthamologists are the one who examine ur eyes most. I dont think she has any idea what an US optometrist is capable of doing.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2005
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
ppa93 said:
WHAT?! You are using American television as proof of your point? Surely you can't be serious...
In Canada, professional degrees are also considered undergraduate degrees, and it has nothing to do with "looking down on" American schools. The reason that a combined PhD/MD, etc can be can be considered a graduate program is because the student is also pursuing a graduate degree (ie. PhD)
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
SAT 2 subject tests ... these are equivalent to our AS level year. I was Just talking to a Med student who went to states after graudtaing in pharmacology over here. He said at 18 a british student is around 18 months ahead of a US student in terms of sciences. Im not supporting either as there both too hard as far as im concerned 🙁 hahah. Anyhow i hope to do a pre med course at an american university - is it true that a pre med course is the same as pre optometry ?
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
Mixer_Vik said:
It is true that in the US the premed curriculum is virtually identical to the pre-opt curriculum. For the most part optometry schools either require or strongly recommend:
English composition and/or literature (one year)
General Psychology (one course)
Social Science (one year)
Statistics (one course)
Calculus (one course)
General Biology with labs (one year)
Microbiology with lab (one course)
General Physics with labs (one year)
General Chemistry with labs (one year)
Organic Chemistry with lab (one year)
Biochemistry (one course)
These are the minimums. The vast majority of students have completed their B.S. or B.A. often in the natural or physical sciences.
The problem is that some schools have different admissions requirements than others. When applying to schools you do not know where you will be accepted. Thus it is often necessary to complete the prereqs for more than one school.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5669&page=1
Die in Britain, survive in the US
Which is better American or British medical care? If a defender of the National Health Service wants to win the argument against a free market alternative, he declares, You wouldnt want healthcare like they have in America, would you?
That is the knock-out blow. Everyone knows the American system is horrible. You arrive in hospital, desperately ill, and they ask to see your credit card. If you havent got one, they boot you out. It is, surely, a heartless, callous, unthinkable system. American healthcare is unbridled capitalism, red in the blood of the untreated poor.
For goodness sake, the American system is so bad that even Americans plenty of them anyway, if not all want to give it up. They want something more like the Canadian system or our own National Health Service. That is what Hillary Clinton wanted and there are still plenty of people like her around. Tony Judt, in a recent edition of the New York Review of Books, was damning about American medical care and glowing about European healthcare. Think of all the money that is wasted in America invoicing patients and administering lots of separate, independent hospitals.
At the same time, we cant help being aware that back here in Britain the NHS is not exactly perfect. The waiting lists have come down, according to the government. They have probably come down somewhat in reality, too. But they still exist and, come to that, there is the worryingly high incidence of hospital infections. So is British healthcare better than American? Or the other way round? And how do you judge?
Lets try the simple way first. Suppose you come down with one of the big killer illnesses like cancer. Where do you want to be London or New York? In Lincoln, Nebraska or Lincoln, Lincolnshire? Forget the money we will come back to that where do you have the best chance of staying alive?
The answer is clear. If you are a woman with breast cancer in Britain, you have (or at least a few years ago you had, since all medical statistics are a few years old) a 46 per cent chance of dying from it. In America, your chances of dying are far lower only 25 per cent. Britain has one of the worst survival rates in the advanced world and America has the best.
If you are a man and you are diagnosed as having cancer of the prostate in Britain, you are more likely to die of it than not. You have a 57 per cent chance of departing this life. But in America you are likely to live. Your chances of dying from the disease are only 19 per cent. Once again, Britain is at the bottom of the class and America at the top.
How about colon cancer? In Britain, 40 per cent survive for five years after diagnosis. In America, 60 per cent do. With cancer of the oesophagus, survival rates are low all round the world. In Britain, a mere 7 per cent of patients live for five years after diagnosis. In America, the survival rate is still low, but much better at 12 per cent.
The more one looks at the figures for survival, the more obvious it is that if you have a medical problem your chances are dramatically better in America than in Britain. That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare. One reason is wonderfully simple. In America, you are more likely to be treated. And going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to treatment.
Fewer than one third of British patients who have had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, whereas in America 75 per cent of patients are given them. In America, you are far more likely to have your heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram a somewhat invasive but definitive test. You are far more likely to have your artery widened with life-saving angioplasty. In Britain not very long ago, a mere 1 per cent of heart attack victims had angioplasty. In America you are much more likely to have heart by-pass surgery. In 1996 British surgeons performed 412 heart by-passes for every million people in the population, less than a fifth of the 2,255 by-passes per million performed in the United States. America has many more lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones 1.5 per million of population compared with 0.2 in Britain.
It is true that in America they overdo the diagnostic tests. In one hospital they did a CT head scan on absolutely everybody who came in complaining of a headache. Even some of the doctors began to think this might be over the top when they realised that only in 2 per cent of cases was anything found. But in Britain the problem is the other way round. Having any diagnostic test beyond an X-ray tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only to be done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need.
Peggy, an American radiologist, came to Britain to meet her English boyfriends family. A pall fell over the visit when the boyfriends father found blood in his urine. He went to the local NHS hospital. Peggy knew that blood in the urine could mean something worryingly serious or could be utterly minor. A few tests could make things clear: a CT scan or cystoscopy for example. That would be routine in the US. But no such tests were done by the NHS hospital in Welwyn Garden City where the father was a patient.
See? UK sucks after all. under qualified doctors working in under qualified hospitals.
Die in Britain, survive in the US
Which is better American or British medical care? If a defender of the National Health Service wants to win the argument against a free market alternative, he declares, You wouldnt want healthcare like they have in America, would you?
That is the knock-out blow. Everyone knows the American system is horrible. You arrive in hospital, desperately ill, and they ask to see your credit card. If you havent got one, they boot you out. It is, surely, a heartless, callous, unthinkable system. American healthcare is unbridled capitalism, red in the blood of the untreated poor.
For goodness sake, the American system is so bad that even Americans plenty of them anyway, if not all want to give it up. They want something more like the Canadian system or our own National Health Service. That is what Hillary Clinton wanted and there are still plenty of people like her around. Tony Judt, in a recent edition of the New York Review of Books, was damning about American medical care and glowing about European healthcare. Think of all the money that is wasted in America invoicing patients and administering lots of separate, independent hospitals.
At the same time, we cant help being aware that back here in Britain the NHS is not exactly perfect. The waiting lists have come down, according to the government. They have probably come down somewhat in reality, too. But they still exist and, come to that, there is the worryingly high incidence of hospital infections. So is British healthcare better than American? Or the other way round? And how do you judge?
Lets try the simple way first. Suppose you come down with one of the big killer illnesses like cancer. Where do you want to be London or New York? In Lincoln, Nebraska or Lincoln, Lincolnshire? Forget the money we will come back to that where do you have the best chance of staying alive?
The answer is clear. If you are a woman with breast cancer in Britain, you have (or at least a few years ago you had, since all medical statistics are a few years old) a 46 per cent chance of dying from it. In America, your chances of dying are far lower only 25 per cent. Britain has one of the worst survival rates in the advanced world and America has the best.
If you are a man and you are diagnosed as having cancer of the prostate in Britain, you are more likely to die of it than not. You have a 57 per cent chance of departing this life. But in America you are likely to live. Your chances of dying from the disease are only 19 per cent. Once again, Britain is at the bottom of the class and America at the top.
How about colon cancer? In Britain, 40 per cent survive for five years after diagnosis. In America, 60 per cent do. With cancer of the oesophagus, survival rates are low all round the world. In Britain, a mere 7 per cent of patients live for five years after diagnosis. In America, the survival rate is still low, but much better at 12 per cent.
The more one looks at the figures for survival, the more obvious it is that if you have a medical problem your chances are dramatically better in America than in Britain. That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare. One reason is wonderfully simple. In America, you are more likely to be treated. And going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to treatment.
Fewer than one third of British patients who have had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, whereas in America 75 per cent of patients are given them. In America, you are far more likely to have your heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram a somewhat invasive but definitive test. You are far more likely to have your artery widened with life-saving angioplasty. In Britain not very long ago, a mere 1 per cent of heart attack victims had angioplasty. In America you are much more likely to have heart by-pass surgery. In 1996 British surgeons performed 412 heart by-passes for every million people in the population, less than a fifth of the 2,255 by-passes per million performed in the United States. America has many more lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones 1.5 per million of population compared with 0.2 in Britain.
It is true that in America they overdo the diagnostic tests. In one hospital they did a CT head scan on absolutely everybody who came in complaining of a headache. Even some of the doctors began to think this might be over the top when they realised that only in 2 per cent of cases was anything found. But in Britain the problem is the other way round. Having any diagnostic test beyond an X-ray tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only to be done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need.
Peggy, an American radiologist, came to Britain to meet her English boyfriends family. A pall fell over the visit when the boyfriends father found blood in his urine. He went to the local NHS hospital. Peggy knew that blood in the urine could mean something worryingly serious or could be utterly minor. A few tests could make things clear: a CT scan or cystoscopy for example. That would be routine in the US. But no such tests were done by the NHS hospital in Welwyn Garden City where the father was a patient.
See? UK sucks after all. under qualified doctors working in under qualified hospitals.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah i agree that with the Doctors over here alot are becomign very complacent. But the fact that everyone has a right to basic health regardless of there financial situation is good.
Imagine .... An American Nhs style system ... now that would a medical service to mess with !
Imagine .... An American Nhs style system ... now that would a medical service to mess with !
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 8
Mixer_Vik said:
1) you can do a combined MBBS/PhD track too! Same exact thing as MD/PhD track.
2) How well you get treated in a UK or Canadian hospital for that matter has more to do with waiting times in a public system rather than the quality of the physicans and surgeons treating you. anytime you go private.. your going to have more control and get what you pay for as a customer of healthcare regardless what country your in.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 8
Richard_Hom said:
Explain.. Are both optho guys and opto guys both under same gov health reimbursement scheme? Do you think this is because maybe the medically trained eye docs just have more control over the market, more so than the UK opto training being really any different from US opto training? hmm..
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 518
- Reaction score
- 0
OzDDS said:
IN my limited exposure while in the UK, ophthalmic opticians (British optometrists) can bill only for certain procedures or examinations and only for certain diagnoses. Only recently has there been any entry by British optometrists in initiating any kind of therapeutics.
In the US, optometrists can treat many more eye conditions and in even prescribe a wide variety of oral medications. They can also use the same billing codes as the ophthalmologists for these same conditions.
I'm not familiar about the politics of British eye care and cannot comment on that.
Richard
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 8
Richard_Hom said:
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. If there is ANY difference in procedures performed. I can almost assure you it has more to do with recent politics, rather than due to any real difference in training between UK optometrists and US optometrists.
Richard_Hom said:
US optometrists have been pushing politically for a wider scope of practice for a while in this country, and attempting to encroach upon things that have classicaly been a part of an ophthalmologits medically trained practice such as surgery and oral med Rx. They have not however at any time during this process expanded the education for undergraduate optometrists.
That is so not true. There is a difference in training if u havent noticed that. I just found out that UK optometrits arent allowed to take the board exam for the practice. they have to go back to school in uSA with advanced standing.OzDDS said:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 8
hmm.. I think I understand what your saying.ppa93 said:
😎 Sorry, but I'll have to direct you to politics again. See medical gradutes from the UK who also recieved their (bachelors by the way UK-MBBS not US-MD .. they are Equivilent degrees!!) can take the US medical board exams and use the title "MD" (just so the US lay public understands) and they are eligible to apply for US MD residency training.
In the field of Dentistry for example. UK dentists also earn a bachelor (BDS) which also is equivilant to the US DDS. They have the SAME scope of practice. UK dentists ARE eligible to take US dental boards and apply for specialty residency. BUT since there are politics involved in dentistry.. foreign trained dentists, if they want to immediatly come over to the US and practice "general dentistry" they have to do 1-2 years additional training. NOT because there is any difference in the training or scope of practice between the UK or US docs. but because of politics and because the US Dental board does not want every foreign grad to be able to come over and immediately start up their own practice.
Same goes for VET and Optometrists and their respective boards.
It's not just the US.. this is the same for the UK and for Australia and Canada as well. Even if you are a US trained doctor MD and you want to practice medicine in Australia for example. You will only be able to get temporary limited registration until you complete some additional training in Australia.
Politics
👍
OzDDS said:
Well, I dont think they teach Optometry students about oral medication in UK. Therefore, they will not be able to prescribe oral medication. Thats why there is a difference in training. Trust me. Why would we have to study for four years, including summer if there isnt a difference?
You are somewhat right. Politics might play a role here. However, there still is a difference in training because we can even do laser surgery in Okalohoma if we want.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 8
Exactly, why don't you ask a UK optometry student or email their faculty before you assume things. Just because they don't practice it, doesnt mean they don't learn about it any more or less than a US optometrist.ppa93 said:
Are you yourself an optometrist or optometry student?
Length of training does not have anything to do with quality of training or content of material covered. Does a medical graduate who completed a 6-year medical program be it MBBS or even US-MD.. (you know the US has 6-year medical programs as well!) By the way the UK also has 4 year graduate Med degree programs too just like the US. Both countries have both pathways to medical training.ppa93 said:
UOP in San Francsico has a dental school that is 3 years long as opposed to every other program that is 4 years. McMaster Medical school also has a medical school program that is 3 years long.
Is one graduate a better doctor than the other because they did 2 more years of undergrad classes in spanish and english lit. My guess is no! Both are equally medically qualified. Just as such.. US OD students and UK BOptom students are both equvilently Optometrically qualified.
ppa93 said:
Your logic astounds me! Okalohoma? That is 1 US state! Again.. DON"T you think this has to do with STATE to STATE political scope of practice rights. This has.. again. NOTHING to do with what you are.. or are not taught in undergraduate optometry school regardless of what country you were qualified in UK or US.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 8
ppa93 said:
I don't disagree with you that American Doctors and US trained allied health care workers are some of the best in the world.
BUT.. expressing your superiority without backing up anything your claiming with any reliable facts. Makes the rest of the world dislike you and think you are "just that".
Just another stupid American
Please... do us all a favor (as a fellow American).. and at least don't make igorant comments without doing a bit of research first and applying some commen sense.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 2
ppa93 said:
Thats the scary thing...that optometrists are not trained to perform surgery or laser...yet they can do it in Oklahoma. That is why Ophthalmology is fighting for patient's rights...to have surgery performed by SURGEONS. And not by someone without proper training. I'm sure UK optometrists could perform surgery in US if they lobbied for it. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION OR TRAINING LEVEL.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2005
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 1
I2I said:
duck and cover! here comes the avalanche!
