Why not counter attack?

[Pril]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Why don't opthalmologist counter attack optometrists and start perscribing glasses just for the sake of giving them a taste of their own medicine(if they were able to do it in OK can't opthalmologists lobby for the right to perscribe glasses and so forth)?

 

[maxwellfish]

Why don't opthalmologist counter attack optometrists and start perscribing glasses just for the sake of giving them a taste of their own medicine(if they were able to do it in OK can't opthalmologists lobby for the right to perscribe glasses and so forth)?

They DO prescribe glasses... but the problem is people with the same attitude as you thinking that the only thing optometrists do is prescribe lenses...

 

[gizmoduck]

I dub this the stupidest thing I've read all night. And I've been talking to a girl about wearing kilts and fishnets to bed so that makes this pretty darned dumb.

 

[doc05]

they do prescribe glasses...but let's face it, refraction is really really boring and isn't that why there are optometrists?

 

[JR]

And problem with people like you is that you think you don't need to go to medical school to do medical procedures ( did you like how I just jumped to a conclusion there, just like you did in your post ).

 

[JR]

I say that optoms have way to much time on their hands; why don't they implement a overnight call in optometry school- that should solve the problem...

 

[Richard_Hom]

Why don't opthalmologist counter attack optometrists and start perscribing glasses just for the sake of giving them a taste of their own medicine(if they were able to do it in OK can't opthalmologists lobby for the right to perscribe glasses and so forth)?

Dear Pril,

1. It is possible that you have not been exposed to the history of this situation. Otherwise you would have come to another conclusion.

2. Ophthalmologists have long "dispensed" glasses and contact lenses. Their "attack" (your words) is already a reality. This probably emboldened elements in our profession to "counterattack" ophthalmology. The dispensing turf war has been happening forthe past 20years.

3; Overnight call or even coverage of emergency rooms occurs already in specific situations where ophthalmologists are not available. For example, military clinics and hospital allow coverage where there is no military ophthalmologists present. Of course, in such cases, a military ophthalmologist may provide secondary call for telephone consultation or telemedicine.

4. [to JR] Having covered ERs myself in a community of 42,000 with an ophthalmologist about 90 miles away and onboard a nuclear carrier on exercise, I concur with some of your thoughts that such experience significantly expands one's appreciation of the magnitude of eye and systemic problems which are encountered. I, therefore, commend you for recommending such experience. I feel more and more optometrists are getting this experience.

 

[j_sde]

curious... what is FAAO?

Dear Pril,

1. It is possible that you have not been exposed to the history of this situation. Otherwise you would have come to another conclusion.

2. Ophthalmologists have long "dispensed" glasses and contact lenses. Their "attack" (your words) is already a reality. This probably emboldened elements in our profession to "counterattack" ophthalmology. The dispensing turf war has been happening forthe past 20years.

3; Overnight call or even coverage of emergency rooms occurs already in specific situations where ophthalmologists are not available. For example, military clinics and hospital allow coverage where there is no military ophthalmologists present. Of course, in such cases, a military ophthalmologist may provide secondary call for telephone consultation or telemedicine.

4. [to JR] Having covered ERs myself in a community of 42,000 with an ophthalmologist about 90 miles away and onboard a nuclear carrier on exercise, I concur with some of your thoughts that such experience significantly expands one's appreciation of the magnitude of eye and systemic problems which are encountered. I, therefore, commend you for recommending such experience. I feel more and more optometrists are getting this experience.

 

[Retinamark]

I feel more and more optometrists are getting this experience.

If they want this experience, why don't they go to med school.

And yeah, what is FAAO

 

[Andrew_Doan]

And yeah, what is FAAO

Fellows of the American Academy of Optometry

 

[Retinamark]

Fellows of the American Academy of Optometry

Thanks Andrew, I knew that, but was trying to point out to our optometrist friend that this is confusing for patients, & that I believe optometrists encourage & exploit this confusion to try & swindle patients into believing that they are "eye doctors".
If they want to be eye doctors they should go to medical school

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Thanks Andrew, I knew that, but was trying to point out to our optometrist friend that this is confusing for patients, & that I believe optometrists encourage & exploit this confusion to try & swindle patients into believing that they are "eye doctors".
If they want to be eye doctors they should go to medical school

I agree.

Optometrists call optometry school rotations INTERNSHIPS and a one year post-graduate clinical training program RESIDENCY.

It's very confusing. When I was in Washington D.C. discussing this issue with Rep. King, he was informed by his optometrist friend that all ODs did internships. This fact is very misleading, which is on par with the term optometric physician.

 

[speyeder]

Confusion is a tool a lot of optometrists use to obscure the facts. Just walk into any optical store and you'll most likely encounter a sign that says something to the effect that the eye doctor is in. Last time I checked, optometrists aren't doctors.

 

[maxwellfish]

Confusion is a tool a lot of optometrists use to obscure the facts. Just walk into any optical store and you'll most likely encounter a sign that says something to the effect that the eye doctor is in. Last time I checked, optometrists aren't doctors.

This really doesn't need to be labored over again... but for $hits and giggles... Optometrists are doctors of optometry that just happen to deal with the eye... hence eye doctor

 

[speyeder]

Good comeback but how many lay people know this difference?

 

[maxwellfish]

all they know, and probably need to know, is that an optometrist (OD) is very competent in caring for their primary eye care needs. This is much like the public not understanding what a DO is, but they do know they in a given specialty, that a DO (whether they know s/he is a DO or not) is competent in caring for their needs.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

all they know, and probably need to know, is that an optometrist (OD) is very competent in caring for their primary eye care needs.

I agree with your statement. However, it makes your field look really bad when ODs try to push to be more than primary eye care providers and legislate to be ocular surgeons.

 

[maxwellfish]

I agree with your statement. However, it makes your field look really bad when ODs try to push to be more than primary eye care providers and legislate to be ocular surgeons.

well it is not all of us... very similar to MDs or DOs stretching the limits of conventional medicine... major yet unnecessary cosmetic surgery, maybe overstating surgical benefits, trial drugs, and treatment and/or surgery that is immoral, or at the very least against one's beliefs.

yes people push the limits (pissing people off in the process) However it is not uncommon nor exclusive to optometry.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

yes people push the limits (pissing people off in the process) However it is not uncommon nor exclusive to optometry.

So this makes it right? 🙄

 

[maxwellfish]

So this makes it right? 🙄

not at all, but be careful not to paint non-MDs as a heartless and moral-less group trying to roll over the ever righteous MDs... too many adjectives??


AND pushing the limits is not always bad (I wanted to add that)

 

[Andrew_Doan]

not at all, but be careful not to paint non-MDs as a heartless and moral-less group trying to roll over the ever righteous MDs... too many adjectives??


AND pushing the limits is not always bad (I wanted to add that)

I can only fight so many battles; thus, because I'm most educated about ophthalmology, I am pointing the finger at your colleagues.

I also agree that pushing the limits is not always bad; however, optometry is not pushing into any frontiers of surgical management of ophthalmic diseases. Please, spare me the rhetoric. Some optometrists are pushing into surgeries that may be pushing the limits for ODs but merely routine for MDs. Don't act like your field is expanding surgical knowledge for the good of the public.

 

[maxwellfish]

I also agree that pushing the limits is not always bad; however, optometry is not pushing into any frontiers of surgical management of ophthalmic diseases. Please, spare me the rhetoric. Some optometrists are pushing into surgeries that may be pushing the limits for ODs but merely routine for MDs. Don't act like your field is expanding surgical knowledge for the good of the public.

No sir, I never said that they were pushing into past any frontiers of surgery, but they very well may be expanding into more accessible health care. Dr Doan, you can spare me the rhetoric... Don't act like public good is only on the mind of MDs. AND routine? you said yourself no surgery was routine.


But you are correct, there are only so many resources to fight battles, but be mindful to fight fair.

 

[speyeder]

all they know, and probably need to know, is that an optometrist (OD) is very competent in caring for their primary eye care needs. This is much like the public not understanding what a DO is, but they do know they in a given specialty, that a DO (whether they know s/he is a DO or not) is competent in caring for their needs.

Poor analogy. DO's & MD's are medical doctors. Optometrists are not. What do most people think when they see the word 'doctor'? Most probably associate it with medical school.

 

[maxwellfish]

What do most people think when they see the word 'doctor'? Most probably associate it with medical school.

Dr. Smith, my dentist, is a doctor who did not go to medical school... again if they are competent, as optometrists are, it does not matter where they went to school. Unfortunatelly, that is just the ignorance of the public... They care about what you can do, not how you got there.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

No sir, I never said that they were pushing into past any frontiers of surgery, but they very well may be expanding into more accessible health care. Dr Doan, you can spare me the rhetoric... Don't act like public good is only on the mind of MDs. AND routine? you said yourself no surgery was routine.


But you are correct, there are only so many resources to fight battles, but be mindful to fight fair.

You make two huge assumptions:

1) Expansion of optometric surgery is for public good via growth of accessible health care.

It's not about money? Don't be blinded to the Oklahoma optometrists who won the ability to perform refractive surgery. I'm sure PRK is improving the quality of life for thousands of rural Americans and Native Americans on reservations. Admit it. It's all about money for the optometrists wanting to do surgery. The claim to increase accessibility to health care is a decoy to win political favors. I am not talking about foreign body removal here. I'm talking about scalpel and laser surgery.

2) MDs are greedy.

How can you make this comment but never address my point above? However, it's more about money for many of my colleagues and me. In particular, I'll be either in academics or the military. I'm sure surgery is going to produce the big dollar in my income. Stop making generalizations.

I have stated many times that surgery is not "routine". However, at least ophthalmologists are trained from day 1 to surgically manage patients. It's integrated in our training and is a routine part of our lives. For optometry to train surgeons, there would have to be a significant overhaul in your education and training programs. Thus, there is nothing remotely routine about optometric surgery.

Considering the high cost of medical education, why would you want to produce an alternative track to train optometric surgeons. Did you know that Medicare currently spends about $100K per year on each resident? Do you expect Medicare to pay for new optometric surgeons? Where do you think the patients will come from to train optometric surgeons? It's not like there is a huge population of surgical patients for a new group of optometric surgeons.

It baffles me, however, when you discuss issues on this forum. On the one hand, you argue for preservation of epilation, foreign body removal, and prescription rights; yet, there is no mention of surgery.

When optometric surgery is brought up, then you argue that this is acceptable and that optometrists are equal to MDs.

Are you fighting for preservation of your craft? Or are you truly hoping to become more than your education has trained you for?

When I applied to medical school, I sat down and thought about the different opportunities. I knew I wanted to do surgery, so there was no question that medical school was the right path for me. Knowing that I want to do surgery, I would never consider going to optometry school. Why is this concept so difficult to digest for some optometrists who frequent this ophthalmology forum?

 

[Richard_Hom]

I agree.

Dear retinamark and Dr. Doan,

Your comments about experience are surely appropriate in the context that you're looking. However, expediency creates these opportunities for optometrists and they are available to fulfill the operational requirements. I'm sure , Dr. Doan, that in your future endeavors in the military, you will find that optometrists either in your branch of service or in others perform the functions I discussed above with excellent results.

I'll only comment on this scope.

Dear retinamark,

I proudly denote my signature line as "OD,FAAO" and have never conveyed on this forum credentials other than those I have earned. The designation "FAAO" is recognized by the US DOD as a requirement for "professional pay" and the attainment of this designation is doesn't connote any particular "specialty certification" in medicine. I believe that this designation does not create confusion in the minds of this audience on this forum since all who attend are knowledgeable and aware.

Yours truly,

 

[Mirror Form]

Dr. Smith, my dentist, is a doctor who did not go to medical school...

Everyone knows that dentists did not go to medical school. The same is certainly not true of optometrists. Most people I know that see optomestrists do not have any idea that they're not medical doctors. This is partially due to the public just being ignorant. But the optometrists seem to be trying to continue fooling the public by labeling themselves optometric physicians. Do you see dentists running around calling themsevles dental physicians? No, b/c they're not trying to pretend to be medical doctors.

again if they are competent, as optometrists are, it does not matter where they went to school. Unfortunatelly, that is just the ignorance of the public... They care about what you can do, not how you got there.

But that's the problem, how do you know your surgeon is competent? It's important to have a method of regulating the standards and quality of surgeons. We already have a method of regulating and training eye surgeons and there are more then enough in the vast majority of the US.

 

[maxwellfish]

Dr Doan and Sledge, I'll be as succinct as possible as I do not wish to continue this argument...Both of you, I did not say surgery, if I did I overstepped in my wording. I grow very tired of arguing on here for that very reason. (its my own fault, I know) Anyway it is entirely impossible to have a meaningful debate on this board, because you constantly have to fend off ignorance and tip-toe around with crucial wording.

I was merely trying to explain why optometrists would be so brash as to call themselves eye doctors. When met with conflict, I simply tried to state that even though the term eye doctor may be confusing optometrists are not the only doctor in the house that is not in fact a medical doctor. I am not going to spend my time on here debating every flippin' term the optometrists have ever used. Sorry.

These lame attempts at points are now moot, as I said it is ridiculous to keep attempting to save face for the optometry profession when such lively debate can either come from or be reduced to "Uh, an optometrist isn't even a doctor??"

Silly. I refrain from further responses.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Maxwellfish,

For the record, I've never argued that optometrists are not doctors. I have much respect for your profession and the services you all provide to society.

I just don't see eye-to-eye with the optometrists who call themselves physicians or want to be surgeons.

 

[JennyW]

Everyone knows that dentists did not go to medical school. The same is certainly not true of optometrists. Most people I know that see optomestrists do not have any idea that they're not medical doctors. This is partially due to the public just being ignorant. But the optometrists seem to be trying to continue fooling the public by labeling themselves optometric physicians. Do you see dentists running around calling themsevles dental physicians? No, b/c they're not trying to pretend to be medical doctors.

*sigh*

Again, I have said this more than once on this forum. NO OPTOMETRIST CARES TO CALL THEMSELVES AN OPTOMETRIC PHYSICIAN! The ONLY reason that this term came about was because in many states, third party payers would NOT recognize "non physician" providers. It doesn't make any sense that an OD can't get paid for an office visit for allergic conjunctivits requiring patanol simply because they're "non physicians" while pediatricians Rx sulfacetamide for every viral conjunctivitis that comes their way.

Again, this came about solely because of managed care.

Jenny

 

[mdkurt]

No sir, I never said that they were pushing into past any frontiers of surgery, but they very well may be expanding into more accessible health care.

How many people in Oklahoma live more than an hour's drive from an ophthalmologist? Of those people, how many have glaucoma? Of those people, how many are uncontrolled on topical meds and need an ALT? Three? Four, maybe? With acrylic IOLs, how many desparately need their elective YAG capsulotomy? Optometry's push for expansion of scope of practice has nothing to do with what patients need or with accessibility to care. Patients need surgery performed by those who do it best.

 

[PBEA]

You make two huge assumptions:

1) Expansion of optometric surgery is for public good via growth of accessible health care.

It's not about money? Don't be blinded to the Oklahoma optometrists who won the ability to perform refractive surgery. I'm sure PRK is improving the quality of life for thousands of rural Americans and Native Americans on reservations. Admit it. It's all about money for the optometrists wanting to do surgery. The claim to increase accessibility to health care is a decoy to win political favors. I am not talking about foreign body removal here. I'm talking about scalpel and laser surgery.

Don't you see how inflammatory, and ultimately biased, your statement is? While I will honestly admit that PRK in OK leads to greater reimbursement (yes I do question OD's PRK in OK), I do not confuse this with your statement about how OD's are soley concerned with trying to irresponsibly gain ANYTHING by performing ANY kind of procedure. In other words, MD's are not the sole bastion for the entire well being of the public at large. I know, to within a micron, when I've exceeded my depth (no pun intended) of training, and I never endanger ANY of the people that I see. Political favors!?!? It was not too long ago that the OMD and the politicians would consider FB removal well out of reach by OD's. We should be seasoned political veterans for all the oppressive rhetoric that we have endured. It's easy to get heated by these discussions because both OD's and OMD's have very valid, and true, supporting arguments. I'll bet this type of bickering will never cease as long as the educational process for all types of eyecare to the public is separated. Dentists hardly kick up a fuss with OMFS, because there is no real need for it. Same educational tract, same logic. By the way, dentists perform surgery, they practice medicine, limited to oral concerns, but nevertheless medicine. It is a fools errand to distinguish dentistry as non-medicinal. I don't care what you call it, I don't care how many years they have been doing it, I don't care if it is limited, they practice medicine. Hold on to your seats 'cause this might hurt, optometrists also practice medicine, even refraction is medicine, for all its benign and not benign reasons refraction is standard (across the board) medical evaluation for all ages. If it isn't in your neighborhood you need to know why!! How the government or regulatory body decided this little morsel, I'll never know. Optometrists of course do alot more medicine when we evaluate and treat the eye in other ways but this is of course all semantics right? I mean we are ALL doctors, after all. Let's just call a spade a spade here, you are defending your turf right!!! I mean come on, you're giving me $hit for providing sound eyecare. OMD's should be looking to protect the eyecare field rather then break it apart, you really think using opticians and an autorefractor or hiring ten or twenty ophthalmic techs is the answer to society's need for primary eyecare? Look FP. RN, or ophthalmic tech, does not cut it for primary eyecare. It takes more then learning the mechanics of a phoropter or slit lamp or Superfield to judge the eyeball and you know it. Yet this continued attitude towards primary eyecare is an obstacle to both our fields. How about larger (just) reimbursements for ophthalmic surgery, and perhaps greater specialization within eyecare, these are the goals that best benefit our profession, and society. I'll leave you with this hypothetical question, if you had to start from scratch in developing an eyecare educational process you would have to arrive at a singular tract for all eyecare doctors right?? If so then if you were forced to mold two separate tracts into one, would you increase the number of OMD's to compensate for the lack of supply of "mostly routine" primary eyecare, thereby eliminating the need for OD's (as well as OMD salary and training and quality) OR, would you increase OD training to include basic procedures, and have the cream of the OD crop recieve advanced training and become the quintessential ophthalmic surgeon in his/her field of expertise. Flame on

 

[Andrew_Doan]

I mean come on, you're giving me $hit for providing sound eyecare. OMD's should be looking to protect the eyecare field rather then break it apart, you really think using opticians and an autorefractor or hiring ten or twenty ophthalmic techs is the answer to society's need for primary eyecare?

If so then if you were forced to mold two separate tracts into one, would you increase the number of OMD's to compensate for the lack of supply of "mostly routine" primary eyecare, thereby eliminating the need for OD's (as well as OMD salary and training and quality) OR, would you increase OD training to include basic procedures, and have the cream of the OD crop recieve advanced training and become the quintessential ophthalmic surgeon in his/her field of expertise. Flame on[/COLOR]

You're not reading my posts, nor are you reading my arguments. I understand that you're being reactionary.

I'm NOT attacking optometrists for providing sound primary eye care. I am NOT trying to eliminate optometrists because I think ODs provide an invaluable service to our society. But if you think surgery is part of your scope of practice, then you're dreaming. 😴

BTW, there are similar turf struggles with OMFS vs ENT. Check the subspecialty boards. Clearly, you don't care how long dentistry has performed surgery (i.e. over 200 hundred years), because if you did, then you couldn't argue for optometry's entry into ophthalmic surgery. 🙄

As I mentioned before, why produce an alternative route into surgery when we produce enough ophthalmic surgeons in this country?

Let me repeat this:

Considering the high cost of medical education, why would you want to produce an alternative track to train optometric surgeons. Did you know that Medicare currently spends about $100K per year on each resident? Do you expect Medicare to pay for new optometric surgeons? Where do you think the patients will come from to train optometric surgeons? It's not like there is a huge population of surgical patients for a new group of optometric surgeons.

From your arguments, it seems there is an internal struggle. Fight for preservation of craft vs wanting to do surgery. So are you fighting to prevent abolishment of the practice of optometry? Or are you really arguing for the right to do surgery? Make up your mind because those two arguments are extremely different.

 

[Pril]

I did not know that opthalmologist could perscribe glasses ( I don't know if I should have known that) thanks for the info.

 

[PBEA]

I did not know that opthalmologist could perscribe glasses ( I don't know if I should have known that) thanks for the info.

It seems like you don't know much about the topics being discussed here, and probably are just trolling for action. Careful, you might be on your way to being banned.

 

[Pril]

It seems like you don't know much about the topics being discussed here, and probably are just trolling for action. Careful, you might be on your way to being banned.

You make too many assumptions and generalizations and why would I be banned? for asking a question! for not knowing a fact! I did not make insulting comments or generalizations about anyone unlike what you have just done. Anways, I will not make any further comments on this issue, I just think some people in this forum should relax and calm down. Please, before making assumptions about people take a deep breath, count to ten, and make sure not to rupture any of your vessels 😉 .