Public Perception of ODs vs OD Perception of ODs

[Eyedoc1999]

Qwopty99, I really don't mean to be an *** (seriously, I don't), but any Joe Blow can read this website. I don't want them to read your posts and think we're a bunch of 14 year old girls texting on our cell phones. Could you please make an attempt to spell the words "you" and "your" and "you're", and maybe capitalize a few things that need to be capitalized. I think you made some good points in the last post, but it's hard for me to respect them when you're projecting an image of a high schooler texting away on her Hello Kitty adorned cell phone. OMG!!

Agreed, if u cud txt n full sentence 4 us. thnx.

Come on, you're using a keyboard. The full word isn't that difficult or time comsuming.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Eyedoc1999]

Hello Kitty TOTALLY freaks me out....that thing has no mouth. WTF is up with that?

Crazy Japanimation.

 

[JAZZEYE]

To answer the OP concerning ODwire..........who cares ?
ODwire is not at all vital.
I refuse to believe the couple of dozen or so OD's that make up 70% of the posts are representative of the thousands of OD's across the country.
You have to pick through a lot of junkposts to find anything useful there.
Its mostly commiserating.... which among highly educated professionals is really quite shameful, don't you think ?

 

[qwopty99]

To answer the OP concerning ODwire..........who cares ?

Thanks for your opinion. That's fine and a reasonable position to take.

 

[JAZZEYE]

Thanks for your opinion. That's fine and a reasonable position to take. The very second sentence states, "feel free to do what u like with it."

That said, there's nothing wrong with presenting a "controversial" topic to an internet chat forum like this. If you don't like it, and don't agree, say so, or don't say anything. That's fine.

But for those of you who miss the main point of the argument - by finding fault in Dr. John Doe, OD, or challenging the reason behind why the person quoted was banned, which wasn't even material to the argument - that's just a sorry thing.

In exams of English reading comprehension, a common question is, "What is the main purpose of the passage?" I would venture to guess some of you never get those questions right.

HUH !
Can you run that by me again ?

 

[qwopty99]

Only the first line in that reply applied to you.

You'll have to read the whole thread to understand what I'm referring to in the rest of the post.

 

[Eyedoc1999]

Thanks for your opinion. That's fine and a reasonable position to take. The very second sentence states, "feel free to do what u like with it."

That said, there's nothing wrong with presenting a "controversial" topic to an internet chat forum like this. If you don't like it, and don't agree, say so, or don't say anything. That's fine.

But for those of you who miss the main point of the argument - by finding fault in Dr. John Doe, OD, or challenging the reason behind why the person quoted was banned, which wasn't even material to the argument - that's just a sorry thing.

In exams of English reading comprehension, a common question is, "What is the main purpose of the passage?" I would venture to guess some of you never get those questions right.

He was banned for misrepesenting himself in a members only area. While there are areas where students, non-optical folks and even the general public can peruse our posts, there are also members-only areas that are strictly for ODs. He was asked to verify that the information he gave was correct and his response was one last explicative ridden insult to everyone that didn't agree with him.

There is not an anything goes attitude on ODWire and there have been several people banned for false identities. There are several people on this thread that will back me up in saying that I personally posts things that are unpopular with the masses and yet I'm still there. Hell, the VP from 1800 is a relatively frequent poster there and nobody is less popular than him. Once again, you don't get banned for having unpopular opinions...you get banned for being pathetic liars.

By the way, thanks for the full sentences.

 

[JAZZEYE]

Only the first line in that reply applied to you.

You'll have to read the whole thread to understand what I'm referring to in the rest of the post.

Your cool with me qwopty.....but whats up with your avitar ?

 

[eyestrain]

Usually I consider eyestrain's views a little pompous but thats pretty funny.

Pompous!? Ouch. Anyway, I can't believe this, of all threads, has turned into one of the most active in recent memory.

 

[qwopty99]

It doesn't matter.

 

[qwopty99]

There is a difference between not being and OD an being caught not being an OD.

 

[qwopty99]

Anyways, I've thought about my opinion on this subject.

I think I agree with the thought that the public doesn't have a cynical view towards us.

The cynical view, as suggested in the first post, exists but it likely only exists among people who:
1. have had bad experiences with optometrists
2. have opinions that are politically aligned with opticians

Otherwise, most people just think we're eye docs.

 

[IndianaOD]

So apply a rule then. If u have one doctorate degree, you use the Dr. salutation. If you have an additional degree, you don't? In whose book of etiquette did you find that?

BTW - I already said above that the use of Dr. is redundant. I never disagreed with that. I said that before you did.



I already suggested that one. Post 17 above. I also said no one does that.

Dr. John Doe, Family Physician, MPH

If you are going to an MD for medical services the MPH degree is near meaningless. Just like, for example if I had an MBA or MS in biology. It wouldn't make me a significantly better clinician.

Thanks for your kind words, however I think you need to be careful about being the devil's advocate on optometry on an open forum like this. Undoubtedly someone will take it as truth.

 

[qwopty99]

If you are going to an MD for medical services the MPH degree is near meaningless.

You don't have the authority to claim that an MPH degree is meaningless to an MD who acquires it.

 

[IndianaOD]

You don't have the authority to claim that an MPH degree is meaningless to an MD who acquires it.

An ophthalmologist who spends (by your argument) 3 years acquiring surgical rights can say to you that spending 5 years "just to learn refraction" is a waste of time.

I can't believe you would actually insult a person's graduate degree before letting them list it after their name with their title.




I don't mind if people take what I say as truth, if it is the truth. You have to deal with the truth. If all you give is spin, and people catch on to it, you lose credibility.

Do you think I have any problems debating pro-ophthalmologists?



Did you share any classes with medical students during your optometric education? I know some schools (e.g. Ohio?), but does Indiana too?

The MPH is far from meaningless, however, if you are going to see the doctor for a medical condition why would an MPH persuade you? To me MPH is more related to public health initiatives and epidemiology in my mind. If they are really into their titles then use them instead of of Dr. I'm pretty sure most people know that an MD is a doctor.

 

[qwopty99]

The MPH is far from meaningless, however, if you are going to see the doctor for a medical condition why would an MPH persuade you? To me MPH is more related to public health initiatives and epidemiology in my mind. If they are really into their titles then use them instead of of Dr. I'm pretty sure most people know that an MD is a doctor.

Maybe the person with the MPH made a better diagnosis in a patient because of his knowledge of epidemiology.

 

[planex]

Do you think that the public perception of optometry will change as the addition of primary care is now being embraced by Walmart and other corporate entities like CVS and the like?

http://www.injuryboard.com/national...nto-risky-clinic-business.aspx?googleid=29492

 

[ProZackMI]

If the West Virginia board thinks it's okay to list your name as Dr. John Doe, OD, then they are ******ed.

Read the statute again. It basically is saying that any professional, whether a dentist, pharmacist, psychologist, lawyer, physician, vet, or optometrist, cannot use Dr. John Smith; rather, he must specifiy by saying John Smith, MD; John Smith, PharmD, etc. Name, degree. The degree (letters) clarifies that you/are not a physician; this is the purpose of the law.

To use Dr. John Smith, OD, is redundant, ridiculous, and pretentious. What does OD stand for? Dr. of Optometry. Case closed. If someone asks you, "what's OD mean?", you tell them "Dr of Optometry". Why is this concept difficult?

 

[ProZackMI]

honestly, i think it happens a lot.

what is wrong with using a title, followed by the degrees u earned? that is the convention.



1. so you say that an OD should write,

Dr. John Doe, Optometrist.

that is fine. but using ur argument, an MD should therefore identify himself as,

Dr. John Doe, Medical Doctor

which i've never seen done anywhere and which u describe as "dumb and redundant". so does a health professional write out their profession or not?


2. i don't always see specifying degrees as dumb and redundant. some medical practitioners in the US acquired their medical degrees from foreign countries. their degrees are

MBBC, or
MB ChB

which isn't the same as MD. you wouldn't know the physician treating u doesn't hold an MD. same thing with M.Optom optometrists who practice in the US. they aren't ODs, but they are optometrists. does any of this matter clinically? not necessarily, but there is room for misunderstanding.


3. what about someone who holds multiple degrees, one of which is a doctorate, such as MD, MPH? by ur argument, they don't need to account for the "MD" because its accounted for in the title, but since they also have an MPH, do they present themselves as,

Dr. John Doe, MPH

that's misleading too, since it doesn't even appear he is a medical doctor. unless u want him to write,

Dr. John Doe, Medical Doctor, MPH.

now, i KNOW i've never seen that done.


writing degrees is as specific and efficient as one can be to communicate one's educational qualifications. the question about redundancy is the "Dr." title, not the degrees.

Academic and professional convention holds, for the most part, that it is proper to use John Doe, MD or John Doe, Ph.D., NOT Dr. John Doe, MD. The degree indicates the title. Why would you need the title and the letters?

Academic convention holds that if you hold two ADVANCED degrees, you may list both of them, even if they are in different fields. Usually, you list the higher degree first, then the lower degree. Example, Zach Smith, MD, MPH; John Doe, OD, MS. You NEVER list a bachelor's degree after your professional degree, however.

If you hold two doctorates, however, convention holds that you A) list the one you earned first, B) list the one you use professionally most often, or C) your personal preference.

Using me as an example, I hold an MD, a JD, and an MS. I never used MS after my name, ever, ever, ever. No need to. When I was working primarily as a psychiatrist, my law degree, while cool, was not relevant to my practice and really had nothing to do with the quality of care to my patients. However, in some instances, I did sign my name Zack S, MD, JD. Since the MD and JD are equivalent degrees (and, yes, they are -- they are both professional doctorates), what do I list first? I was an MD first and I was practicing as an MD, so I did MD, JD. I had a colleague who an MD and had an MA in psychology; she was MD, MA since the MD was higher. I believe her MA came before med school. Was her MA necessary to list? No, but I think for many, it sets them apart from the other psychiatrists/optometrists, etc. who don't hold another advanced degree.

Now that I'm working primarily as an attorney, I go by Zack S, JD, MD. Why? I'm working as a lawyer primarily, not a physician. However, I want to distinguish myself from other lawyers who are not trained in medicine. Interestingly, law, unlike other learned professions, does not have an academic/professional convention of NAME, degree. More and more attorneys are appending "JD" to their names, however, than before, which is nice. It's not uncommon to see JD, MSW or JD, MA or JD, MPH or JD, PHD now.

If you're an OD, you should simply be John Doe, OD, John Doe, OD, Optometrist. That is what you are. No need to use the prefix Dr. It's implied with the degree you hold and the profession.

 

[ProZackMI]

In general, the public is comprised of people who really do not understand subtly and cannot distinguish between various types of medical professions and training for such professions. It's not uncommon for even fairly intelligent people to make such erroneous statements as "dentists must attend medical school first" or "PAs are the same as residents or medical students".

Many people think a vet has an MD but specializes in animals. I'm a psychiatrist and many people, even college-educated folks, cannot distinguish between psychology and psychiatry. Fewer know the difference between an MSW and a psychologist.

The best thing you can do is be down-to-Earth, educate your patients about what you do and your training, and comport with the regulatory schema of your state medical practice/optometry practice acts. From a legal standpoint, it's best to be John Doe, OD or John Doe, OD, Optometrist. Avoid "optometric physician" and unqualified "Dr. John Doe" monikers as they may unintentionally confuse or mislead the "average" schmuck who comes into your office. It's simply better, and more professional, in my opinion, to list your degree and profession on your cards and signs rather than DR John Smith, OD.

You rarely see physicians do Dr and MD. You rarely see scientists and other PhD holders do this either. The exception: minorities and chiropractors. I have seen a few DOs do Dr. X DO, but this was in a state where there few DOs (Wash State) and I believe it was designed to clarify or explain rather than puff one's ego.

 

[KHE]

Using me as an example, I hold an MD, a JD, and an MS. I never used MS after my name, ever, ever, ever. .

My GOD...a professional student! Hey Zak, GET A JOB!!! LMAO!

 

[ProZackMI]

first. u don't get booted for not being an OD on ODwire. if that were the case,
1. optom students wouldn't be allowed on the site. (they are)
2. pre-opt students wouldn't be allowed on the site. (they are)
3. it is my understanding there are a few other folks (vision scientists, some in marketing) are also registered.
4. there are optometrists from foreign countries (not ODs, but maybe B.Optoms, M.Optoms etc.) who have registered accounts and haven't been eliminated yet.
5. there is a regular poster there who is a medical student whose only tie to the site is that his parents are ODs. he's been upfront about this.
6. it is highly likely that there are accounts of individuals who are not ODs, and who do not fall under any circumstance above, who have accounts on ODwire, but because they haven't been identified as such, they have not been booted.
7. the very fact that u can register on ODwire without offering proof of an OD degree implies u can acquire a registration on ODwire without having an OD.

so strictly speaking, no, u do not get eliminated because u are not an OD, despite ur insistence.

second. he did not claim he was an OD. the first line from his opening states, "Quick question, I'm considering optometry, I like the field." this is neither a claim nor implication that he is an OD.

third. the truth is he got eliminated because of the line of reasoning and tone of the thread he started. if he had come on and said he was interested in optometry and had nice things to say about us, he wouldn't have been eliminated. yes, there may have been a technical issue with his registration, but until he raised his voice, there wasn't any. his "Join Date" says October 2006. is it just coincidence that he was banned January 25, 2008, when his first post to the forum was January 24, 2008? if he was really eliminated due to him not being an OD, why didn't it happen sooner?

as for ur argument about established posters not being eliminated - well Dr. Farkas' policy is one of no moderation. u can bet u have a much bigger leash if ur an OD than if u are on borrowed or self-invited time. that poster was.

last. this is all immaterial to the argument. in my first post above, i said,

"rather than answer his questions (Why is corporate optometry bad?), he was just deleted (i.e. why are we wasting our time with him?)."

honestly, i don't believe what i wrote in parentheses was significantly off the mark. OK - suppose u are right (that he was deleted due to him not being an OD), so what. that isn't the crux of my post.


the crux of my post is, the difference in Public Perception of ODs vs OD Perception of ODs. i simply used the ODwire thread as a jumping board.




fine. but that is the point i was trying to discuss. u don't think its a point worth arguing. others might. its clear Indy (for instance, not necessarily trying to pick on him) believes ODs are more entitled to the "doctor" title than ophthalmologists are (they're surgeons).




anyways, i don't see how any of this hurts anyone. i see it on business cards, i see it on websites, i see it on advertisements.

Dr. John Doe, MD
Dr. John Doe, DDS
Dr. John Doe, OD

sorry if i'm hurting people's feelings that i'm calling them doctor doctor and making them look dumb because of it. quick google,

In Depth - Wait Times in Canada - Dr. John Maxted, MD
http://www.insidermedicine.ca/Archives/In_Depth_-_Wait_Times_in_Canada_-_Dr_John_Maxted_MD_1934.aspx

Dr. R Travis, MD
http://www.healthgrades.com/directo...les/dr-md-reports/Dr-R-Travis-MD-096E711A.cfm

Dr. Terrence Chan OD
http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/recom...tion-sf-/ae94049c-70c0-4a8f-bd7a-9b205dfaaeef


tell these folks they are dumb-dumbs for using their titles.


tell me how u identify an MD MPH. or does he forego his doctor title?

This is not proper academic or professional convention. To most in academia, as well as most professional organizations, such redundancy is unnecessary and seen as self laudatory. It is proper to be John Doe, OD. There is no need for the Dr. prefix in cards and letterheads.

If you hold an OD and another graduate degree, you can list both just an MD who has an MPH would. Why would an MD, MPH lose his Dr. title? You're not thinking this through.

Proper format: John Smith, MD, MPH.
Pretentious self-laudatory windbag format: Dr. John Smith, MD, MPH

Why would an MD who has an MPH list his credentials as John Smith, MPH without the MD? Why would he be Dr. John Smith, MPH?

At any rate, how you portray yourself to the public will set the tone for how you are perceived. If you insist on being called Dr., attempt to mislead your clients/patients, etc., you'll be perceived like chiropractors (e.g., MD-wannabes). If you act professionally, do your job well, and treat your patients with respect while educating them on what it is you do, you'll gain their respect and trust and have no problems being accepted. In fact, most patients will prefer to call you Dr. or Doc and have no problems understanding you're not an MD just like they have no problem understanding their dentist is not an MD (well, most understand this).

 

[LizUMD]

Why do you post this crap?

ODs are THE eye doctor. OMD are eye surgeons. I am convinced that ODs are BETTER at primary eye care than OMDs. This includes basically anything short of the actual technical procedure of the surgery itself.

OMDs get very little training in refractive correction, contact lenses, and binocular vision. Let alone few will take the time to properly manage dry eye, blepharitis, ocular allergies and such.

Take a child for to an OMD for headaches and learning difficulties. If they have an accomodative or BV cause 90% of the time they will not be diagnosed or treated.

Overall an OMD is not "better" than an OD. They are trained and "better" at different things just as ODs are.

Are you actually an OD student?

As a residency trained OD 1 have 5 years of eye-related education. Your general OMD has 3. What is the disconnect?

You cannot compare "years" in this instance. You have stated yourself in other posts, when you were trying to make a different point, that first and second year basic science curriculums in optometry and med school are quite similar. Third and fourth year clinicals cannot compare in scope or volume to the residency years of an OMD. For starters, the third and fourth years of optometry school are nowhere near 80 hours per week, 50 weeks per year. If you were to recalculate "years" of respective training to accurately reflect time and content, it would no longer be a 5:3 ratio, even assuming the OD is residency trained and the OMD has not done a fellowship. Therein may lie at least part of the disconnect.

 

[LizUMD]

honestly, i think it happens a lot.

what is wrong with using a title, followed by the degrees u earned? that is the convention.



1. so you say that an OD should write,

Dr. John Doe, Optometrist.

that is fine. but using ur argument, an MD should therefore identify himself as,

Dr. John Doe, Medical Doctor

which i've never seen done anywhere and which u describe as "dumb and redundant". so does a health professional write out their profession or not?


2. i don't always see specifying degrees as dumb and redundant. some medical practitioners in the US acquired their medical degrees from foreign countries. their degrees are

MBBC, or
MB ChB

which isn't the same as MD. you wouldn't know the physician treating u doesn't hold an MD. same thing with M.Optom optometrists who practice in the US. they aren't ODs, but they are optometrists. does any of this matter clinically? not necessarily, but there is room for misunderstanding.


3. what about someone who holds multiple degrees, one of which is a doctorate, such as MD, MPH? by ur argument, they don't need to account for the "MD" because its accounted for in the title, but since they also have an MPH, do they present themselves as,

Dr. John Doe, MPH

that's misleading too, since it doesn't even appear he is a medical doctor. unless u want him to write,

Dr. John Doe, Medical Doctor, MPH.

now, i KNOW i've never seen that done.


writing degrees is as specific and efficient as one can be to communicate one's educational qualifications. the question about redundancy is the "Dr." title, not the degrees.

Honestly. I think the reason you've never seen "Dr. John Doe, Medical Doctor" is because very few physicians advertise themselves with the title "Dr." at all. Open your phone book and scan the yellow pages... they're listed simply as John Doe, MD or John Doe, DO or John Doe, MD, MPH. When I see someone who might be a physician advertise as "Dr. John Doe" my first thought is that they are likely a chiropractor.

 

[ODduck]

After reading this thread, I have taken it upon myself to look around at how optometrists write their names, even if they have multiple degrees...

At school, many of the professors that do research have those big posters with pretty much the abstract, methods, etc. of their studies hanging in the hallways...

Zero have the form Dr. "So-and-so", OD...

Every single one of them have the form Name, OD. Even the ones who have extra degrees/accolades, it says:

Name, OD, PhD, FAAO

or

Name, OD, MS, FAAO

etc.

Not a single one of them used the prefix Dr.

 

[qwopty99]

Fun fun.

ProZack

 

[qwopty99]

bla

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Fun fun.

ProZack

Thanks for your input. You seem to speak as though you are an authority on the issue. Perhaps you are right on every point. That is fine. (btw - i wasn't suggesting an MD, MPH call himself Dr. John Doe, MPH, but the concept was insinuated by some others).

But herein lies the problem: we see Dr. John Doe, MD, a lot. What is a lot? I don't know, but I could probably find (literally) a million examples on the internet. But what if it isn't the docs themselves who perpetrate this "Pretentious self-laudatory windbag format"? What if its the public?

The following links appear to be doctor-search listings, and presumably, created by members (webpage designers or something) of the lay public.

Dr. John Maxted, MD
http://www.insidermedicine.ca/Archives/In_Depth_-_Wait_Times_in_Canada_-_Dr_John_Maxted_MD_1934.aspx

Dr. R Travis, MD
http://www.healthgrades.com/directo...les/dr-md-reports/Dr-R-Travis-MD-096E711A.cfm

Dr. Terrence Chan OD
http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/recom...tion-sf-/ae94049c-70c0-4a8f-bd7a-9b205dfaaeef

We can decide all we want about titling convention. But that means we have to go and tell the public they're wrong when they refer to us in written form as Dr. John Doe, MD, PhD.

I'm not going to do that.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I'm sure there are plenty of Dr. X, MD out there, but in flipping through my yellow pages earlier found at best 1/50 MDs that use Dr, MD.

 

[IndianaOD]

You cannot compare "years" in this instance. You have stated yourself in other posts, when you were trying to make a different point, that first and second year basic science curriculums in optometry and med school are quite similar. Third and fourth year clinicals cannot compare in scope or volume to the residency years of an OMD. For starters, the third and fourth years of optometry school are nowhere near 80 hours per week, 50 weeks per year. If you were to recalculate "years" of respective training to accurately reflect time and content, it would no longer be a 5:3 ratio, even assuming the OD is residency trained and the OMD has not done a fellowship. Therein may lie at least part of the disconnect.

The first and second years in many schools with revised curriculum integrated systemic AND eye care. I'm no expert, but I have several close MD friends and they tell me they got very little eye-related training.

I will come to understand the current system if someone can tell my why 4 years of med school better prepares someone for an ophthalmology residency than 4 years of OD school. The system is screwed up.

Don't also forget that much of the OMD process exclusively centers on surgery and spends very little time on primary care matters.

I won't drivel on, this issue will persist forever. I'm leaving it that OMD should stick to surgery--what they know, just as ODs should stick to full scope primary eye care unless more in-depth residencies are developed.

 

[qwopty99]

Advertisements in the yellow pages are designed by the doctors themselves.

I said the lay public often uses/refers to Dr. John Doe, MD.

 

[qwopty99]

duplicate post.

 

[still_confused]

divide and conquer, i like it

 

[gochi]

Hello Kitty TOTALLY freaks me out....that thing has no mouth. WTF is up with that?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Advertisements in the yellow pages are designed by the doctors themselves.

I said the lay public often uses/refers to Dr. John Doe, MD.

I've never seen that. I'm not even sure when you would see that. Patients sure wouldn't verbalize it that way, and I can't think when they would write that either.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The first and second years in many schools with revised curriculum integrated systemic AND eye care. I'm no expert, but I have several close MD friends and they tell me they got very little eye-related training.

This is unfortunately true, though may vary from place to place. This year (2nd) we've had 3 hours of eye physical diagnosis, 2 hours of eye clinic, and 2 hours of eye path. We can do ophth. rotations, but we only have so many free weeks to do that.

I will come to understand the current system if someone can tell my why 4 years of med school better prepares someone for an ophthalmology residency than 4 years of OD school. The system is screwed up.

The answer is the same that its always been: greater systemic training. Generally speaking, this isn't a huge deal what with most eye drugs having such low systemic effects. However, I have seen a few things from time to time that the general MD managed/did/whatever that my go-to OD had fairly limited knowledge of.

Don't also forget that much of the OMD process exclusively centers on surgery and spends very little time on primary care matters.

As always, I'd like to see some statistics to back up this claim.

I won't drivel on, this issue will persist forever. I'm leaving it that OMD should stick to surgery--what they know, just as ODs should stick to full scope primary eye care unless more in-depth residencies are developed.

Unfortunately, like everything else, this differs widely on a case by case basis. I've seen some MDs that were excellent in both primary care and surgery (and goodness knows plenty that sucked at the former). I've also seen lots of ODs that were just awesome at primary care and the handful of 60000 codes they could do here, and I've seen some (even fresh out of school and residency) that had issue with some of the more primary care aspects.

I think if optometry education was more like dental (you have to see X diseases Y times and do Z number of this procedure before you can graduate), that would go a long way towards fixing your end of things. Likewise, MDs do need to realize where their strengths and weaknesses are (CL fits chief among the latter, in my experience) and let ODs handle some of it. That is getting some better with the coming along of the referral center. If you're doing surgery 4 days a week, I'd bet you would have no interest in allergies, DR monitoring, or glasses/contacts.

 

[qwopty99]

I've never seen that. I'm not even sure when you would see that. Patients sure wouldn't verbalize it that way, and I can't think when they would write that either.

I guess patients wouldn't.

 

[LizUMD]

I guess patients wouldn't.

But webdesigners do. Or is it doctors that do?

You've never seen it? Pop your cherry here:

http://www.drjohnellis.com/pages/746758/index.htm

Its pretentious and redundant. I guess rather than saying its "never" done we should say its very rarely done, and is typically looked down upon when it is. For every web entry with a doctor describing himself in such terms I'm sure there are thousands of web entries that do it correctly. I still don't understand why you think it would be more proper- do you not see the redundancy? Affixing a doctoral degree as a credential after your name fully implies that one has the title of "Dr." as well as indicating which field the doctorate is in. Its kills both birds. Affixing "Dr." followed by a field after the name (optometrist, dentist, etc.) accomplishes the same thing but uses two stones. Use Dr. John Doe, O.D. if you want, there's no law of nature against it, but realize that the majority of your doctoral colleagues will probably smirk at the naivete.

 

[eyestrain]

I guess patients wouldn't.

But webdesigners do. Or is it doctors that do?

You've never seen it? Pop your cherry here:

http://www.drjohnellis.com/pages/746758/index.htm

You can post all the links you want. All it proves is there some docs out there who love to be pompous and redundant when displaying their name and title. Just because some people do it doesn't mean it's any less wrong.

 

[qwopty99]

bla

 

[qwopty99]

duplicate post.

 

[eyestrain]

In my opinion, the individuals in this thread who have appeared the MOST pompous are those who have named names (pompous, pretentious, self laudatory, windbag) at those who identify themselves, Dr. John Doe, MD.

What have any of those folks done? Nothing, but state their title and academic degrees. But you feel authorized to look down on them and call them cocky. That's fine.

I'm sure Eyestrain, OD, can be as pompous as Dr. John Doe, MD, even without resorting to calling yourself Dr. Eyestrain, OD.

Good Lord, you need to get over this crap. I can't understand why this is such a big friggin' deal to you. Pretty much everyone here agrees on how it should be done except for you. Can we just leave it at that?

 

[qwopty99]

http://www.aboutus.org/Dr._H._Dwight_Cavanagh,_M.D.,_Ph.D..

 

[jefguth]

Good Lord, you need to get over this crap. I can't understand why this is such a big friggin' deal to you. Pretty much everyone here agrees on how it should be done except for you. Can we just leave it at that?

+1

 

[qwopty99]

I didn't criticize it.

 

[LizUMD]

I didn't make a big deal out of it. You guys called out my first post.

I didn't criticize it. You guys did.

I don't use it. I just don't see why people who do should be criticized for doing so.

You say its wrong. How? Is it morally wrong? Ethically wrong? Misrepresentation?

My opinion is no.

Let. It. Go.

And just for the record- several people have already told you why it is "wrong"... it is redundant at best and pretentious at worst. Any English teacher would tell you that. There is no good reason to basically call yourself a doctor twice. Period.

 

[ProZackMI]

Fun fun.

ProZack

Thanks for your input. You seem to speak as though you are an authority on the issue. Perhaps you are right on every point. That is fine. (btw - i wasn't suggesting an MD, MPH call himself Dr. John Doe, MPH, but the concept was insinuated by some others).

But herein lies the problem: we see Dr. John Doe, MD, a lot. What is a lot? I don't know, but I could probably find (literally) a million examples on the internet. But what if it isn't the docs themselves who perpetrate this "Pretentious self-laudatory windbag format"? What if its the public?

The following links appear to be doctor-search listings, and presumably, created by members (webpage designers or something) of the lay public.

Dr. John Maxted, MD
http://www.insidermedicine.ca/Archives/In_Depth_-_Wait_Times_in_Canada_-_Dr_John_Maxted_MD_1934.aspx

Dr. R Travis, MD
http://www.healthgrades.com/directo...les/dr-md-reports/Dr-R-Travis-MD-096E711A.cfm

Dr. Terrence Chan OD
http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/recom...tion-sf-/ae94049c-70c0-4a8f-bd7a-9b205dfaaeef

We can decide all we want about titling convention. But that means we have to go and tell the public they're wrong when they refer to us in written form as Dr. John Doe, MD, PhD.

I'm not going to do that.

That's DOCTOR Prozack, MD, JD, MS, to you!

Seriously, your few examples of online redundancy hardly constitute compelling evidence. Yes, it happens, but in true form, it's seen as unseemly and self-laudatory. If you have an OD, you're a doctor...end of story.

It seems to me that those folks who use both the prefix and suffix either think the public is so friggin' stupid they need to be told twice, which is arrogance, or that they love to inflate their achievement in the face of others.

Rarely do you see true professionals act in such a manner. You do see it, frequently, among minorities, especially PhDs and EdDs, and among the chiropractic crowd.

Your examples are anectodal at best and do not respresent the majority of professionals. As I have worked in academia, I would say that gives me a leg up over those who have not. There are proper protocols at most universities.

 

[ProZackMI]

The first and second years in many schools with revised curriculum integrated systemic AND eye care. I'm no expert, but I have several close MD friends and they tell me they got very little eye-related training.

I will come to understand the current system if someone can tell my why 4 years of med school better prepares someone for an ophthalmology residency than 4 years of OD school. The system is screwed up.

Don't also forget that much of the OMD process exclusively centers on surgery and spends very little time on primary care matters.

I won't drivel on, this issue will persist forever. I'm leaving it that OMD should stick to surgery--what they know, just as ODs should stick to full scope primary eye care unless more in-depth residencies are developed.

You are focusing on OMD training and general "eye care" training. Since you've never been to medical school, what you fail to realize is that an MD or DO gives you a comprehensive, not a specialized, understanding of medicine: pharm, pathophys, pathology, dx, tx, etc. It's four years of intense training that gives physicians a comprehensive understanding of systemic medicine. AFTER graduation, a physician refines his/her knowledge by a general internship and then a specialized residency.

Even though I'm a psychiatrist, I understand systemic disease states, cardiology, neurology, endocrinology, ophthalmology, etc. I'm sure you know WAY more about primary ocular care than me, since I don't pratice in that area, but I know your knowledge of CVM, neuro, endo, etc. is not anywhere near that of most MDs or DOs. No way, no how. Do you understand the significance of hyper/hypokalemia? You might understand hypertensive retinopathy or DR, but do you know how manage and control it systemically while taking into account possible related anemia, CHF, DCM, etc.?

So, while it's true, in medical school, we don't spend a great deal of time learning JUST ocular phys and path because we are also learning systemic medicine. You spend four whole years learning the eye and related non-systemic medicine. Yes, you learn neuroanatomy and phys, but you don't learn comprehensive neurology. Yes, you might have taken gross anatomy I and II, but not systemic pathophys, histo, physical assessment, comprehensive dx and tx., etc.

Practicing medicine is not always about specialities. All MDs and DOs are physicians first, then specialists/surgeons second. We share that comprehensive medical training that is not taught in optometry school, pharmacy school, dental school, PT school, chiro school, grad school, etc.

Dentistry, optometry, psychology, and other doctoral fields do not provide one with the type of knowledge you possess. I'm not an expert, but an OD learns a great deal in school, but uses how much of it later in pratice? Saem with dentistry and other fields. Your education and training, even with a residency (one year) do not compare to systemic medical training and education even internists and GPs receive.

I'm NOT attacking optometry, but I'm trying to put this in perspective for you. You are an OD who thinks he is entitled to be an MD. Why? YOU made the choice to attend OD school. I'm sure you could have gone to medical school.

Unlike OMDs, I am not saying your OD is inferior, but rather, I am saying it's different. That difference is crucial in the type of service and care you provide. You're an optometrist, not a physician. Just like a dentist is a dentist, not a physician. No one is saying you're inferior, just different. Also, while most OMDs are surgeons, there are some primary care OMDs out there and I'm quite sure they do just fine in providing refraction, general eye care, etc. After all, they have FOUR years of medical training, and 3-4 years of post graduate training in EYE CARE.

Four years of OD training + 1 year of a "residency" is hardly equivalent training. I'm sorry, but you never had to rotate through peds, cardio, emergency, psych, neuro, and ob-gyn. You never had one year of intense internship. You never did a focused specialty residency, being on-call, for 3-4 years. I'm not insulting your knowledge, but an ODs training in systemic comprehensive medicine pales in comparison to osteo/allopathic training. So, when you really compare your education to an OMDs, the OMD has four years of medical school with comprehensive systemic medical training, you do not. An MD has one of rotating clerkships in med school, you do not. An MD has one year of an intense internship in cross specialties, you do not. An OMD has 3-4 years of a specialized ocular surgical and non-surgical residency, you do not.

And, btw, the OMDs who do non-surg care do it just as well if not better than most ODs. They do refraction and have no problems doing that. For many years, I went to an OMD for my general eye care. The glasses and contacts I received were no different than the ones I received from my optometrist now.
End of story.

 

[qwopty99]

And what's your take on the issue?

 

[cpw]

Can I just be the first to say... Who cares ? Write your title however is legal in your state.

 

[qwopty99]