Why such beef w/ other health professions?

[aphistis]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It's obvious you have no argument to counter my claim so just admit you belong lower on the totem pole and be happy with it.

Gee, we have someone with no significant post history and has started harassing board regulars without anything even faintly resembling constructive contributions to SDN. Mods, where's the ban?

 

[chemgirlie]

I sense a bit of jealousy coming from this chick. Sorry you couldn't cut it for med school and have to settle for optometry school. It's Ok you can always refer the complicated patients to the true experts ..the opthalmologists.

😴

 

[JennyW]

It's obvious you have no argument to counter my claim so just admit you belong lower on the totem pole and be happy with it.

You haven't made any claims. You've just thrown about a bunch of limp playground insults to help bolster your own weak self esteem. I'm not sure what claim it is you want me to try and counter. 🙄

Jenny

 

[Mags]

I'm so sick of this type of forum. It should just be deleted.

Those who say the only students is non-MD programs are those who "could not cut-it" are sadly mistaken. I have two close friends that I know for sure who graduated with 3.80+ GPA's. I have another friend who was accepted to medical school and OD school and is now my classmate. I was told be a faculty member at a medical school, while I was doing research with him, that if I would have applied, I would have been accepted.

So...shove that in your pipe and smoke it!

Basically, we all choose different things in our lives that we believe will make us happy. There is no reason for others to disrespect you for those choices. For the love of god, we are all in DOCTORAL programs. I would think we could all act a little more mature.

precisely!

although only a 2nd year(pharmd) i have heard so many times the questions: "oh so why didnt you want to go to med school" or "oh were your grades not good enough for med school?" .. as if to imply that pharmacy school is beneath med school

we all (hopefully) choose our professions b/c we love the field we're in (even with its ups and downs), and cant imagine having any other career than the one we're in. I chose my profession b/c it was interesting to me (a chemistry nerd who loves people), and I saw myself as a pharmacist, not as a doctor, for the rest of my life. I chose my profession b/c I knew it would satisfy my never ending desire to learn, and to help others.

We should all be choosing our professions b/c we can't imagine NOT being in that profession, and doing good for the people and patients of that profession. Not b/c we want "superiority" over other health care professions, as i feel many who i knew were pre med, wanted.

as for "not getting into med school"... every profession has rigorous pre reqs and requirements now.almost every school has high standards, so to say that "non-MD" students "couldnt cut it".. well.. quite frankly, is bs... you honestly think professors and alum would want less than par students welcomed into their respective professions???? think again

as for the fissure between doctors and everyone else... its been there for a long time.. and it will be there for a long time as egos inflate as they tend to do... i myself believe that every doctorate program has its hardships, and pros, but that doesnt make me better than an md, or a dentistry student better than a pharmd.... we're all in doctorate programs.. we all made the cut... we all are working very hard to gain a license in the profession we are in...

i consider us all equals ... many people though do not... and thats their view to hold....

cheers

 

[MacGyver]

I'm shadowing both an ophthalmologist and an optometrist this summer so I get enough of both sides of this cat fight on weekdays. Optometrists are afraid that ophthalmologists will take away their basic rights while ophalmologists are worried that optometrists wil take the scope of their practice too far. Both sides are responding with militant lobbying that goes too far and really shows how much these people have their panties in a wad.

That is a load of crap. You wont find a single legislative action in any state i the country in which opthos seek to cut back on optoms "basic rights."

Its the ODs that are the aggressors, not the MDs. They are the ones trying to get scope of practice expansions to do surgery and other crap.

Quit pretending like these parties are on equal grounds. they are not. Optoms are trying to EXPAND THEIR SCOPE into MDs turf. Opthos are happy with the status quo, whereas the ODs are certainly not happy with the way things currently stand. They are constantly fighting for increased scope.

 

[MacGyver]

I find it especially humorous when all the non-physicians claim to have no interest in being a medical doctor, yet after graduation they promptly run off to the state legislatures and try to get scope of practice expansions into doctor territory.

what a bunch of hypocrites.

Lets face it. MD/DOs are the holy grail of medicine, and everybody wants a piece of it. For those who dont agree, here's your homework assignment. Look up all the proposed state regulations and recent laws that have resulted in scope expansions for non-physicians. You dont get those kinds of regulations changed and laws added without a SUBSTANTIAL lobbying effort.

Hell even the dentists are trying to cut in on surgeon turf. There is not a single healthcare profession that is NOT trying to cut in on MD/DO turf.

Here's a small sampling of their devious plans for world domination:

OMS Dentists: want plastic surgery privileges (not just recon, but cosmetics)

Optometrists: want wider script rights and surgery privs

PAs: want less supervision, more script rights (including unsupervised sched II narcotics)

NPs: Fought for independent practice (no supervision) and now trying to have it expanded into all states

Chiropractors: want script rights

Pharmacists: want script rights (already have it in a few states); want to eliminate existing supervision rules in the states that do allow scripts

Psychologists: want script rights (already have it in 2 states)

CRNAs: want independent practice (already have it in many states) and wnat less supervision in the remaining states which require it


MDs/DOs want nothing more than to keep the existing status quo. The non-physicians are the aggressors here, so lets get real and recognize it for what it is: a power grab by the non-doctors.

 

[Leukocyte]

I must admit I have a lot of respect for humble MDs...they got everything to be proud of, but they don't show it or rub it in

Stompy, that is a priceless line. 👍 I would add, that this could apply to anyone who has been "blessed", not just MDs. 🙂

 

[JennyW]

That is a load of crap. You wont find a single legislative action in any state i the country in which opthos seek to cut back on optoms "basic rights."

Its the ODs that are the aggressors, not the MDs. They are the ones trying to get scope of practice expansions to do surgery and other crap.

If you want to talk about loads of crap, THAT is a load of crap. In my home state of New York in the past 5 years, we have had our right to remove foreign bodies, and perform punctal occlusion suspended TWICE because OMDs petitioned the state courts to restrict ODs from doing these procedures because they are "surgical" procedures. SInce ODs can't do "surgery" they shouldn't be doing foregin body removals since that's "surgery." In one of the cases, the presiding judge had a brother in law who was an OMD. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Both times these lame rulings were tossed out, but it took a few months each time, so for those few months, patients were denied the ability to see the doctor of their choice for a procedure that their doctor had safely performed hundreds of times.

Also in my home state, a ruling was made a few years back that ODs could no longer treat glaucoma using the following argument:

Since prostaglandin analogs were not part of the formulary when the original law was passed (since there WEREN'T ANY prostaglandin analogs on the market) ODs were NOT allowed to prescribe prostaglandin analogs. Since they were not allowed access to ALL topical glaucoma drops by statute, then they shouldn't be allowed access to ANY. Some judge agreed with this lame premise too. So again, ODs were restricted from doing something that they were trained to do, and had been safely doing for years with the stroke of a pen. THis ruling was ALSO promptly thrown out on appeal after a few months.

SO don't try to shovel that crap that OMDs aren't trying to restrict ODs scope of practice. It is garbage like this that causes us to fight for "surgical" priviledges, not some desire to do YAGs or PIs or LASIK.

And in fact, these procedures WOULD have been restriced under the original version of the VETS bill. I'm sure that THAT wasn't an accident.

Jenny

 

[MacGyver]

JennyW please get a grip. I said "basic rights" not "stuff that ODs want to expand into that comprises MD turf"

"Basic rights" = eyeglass prescriptions, eye exams

I'm sorry but you are a fool if you think foreign body removal and that other crap constitutes "basic rights" for ODs.

 

[JennyW]

JennyW please get a grip. I said "basic rights" not "stuff that ODs want to expand into that comprises MD turf"

"Basic rights" = eyeglass prescriptions, eye exams

I'm sorry but you are a fool if you think foreign body removal and that other crap constitutes "basic rights" for ODs.

Cmon Mac.

Foreign body removal and the insertion of punctal plugs definately fall under ODs training, and scope of practice as primary eye care providers. Even Doan says so. You're being disingenuous if you try and state otherwise.

Jenny

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Cmon Mac.

Foreign body removal and the insertion of punctal plugs definately fall under ODs training, and scope of practice as primary eye care providers. Even Doan says so. You're being disingenuous if you try and state otherwise.

Jenny

I agree with Jenny. Plugs and FB removal are procedures ODs are trained for, can do, and do it well.

Also, please stop attacking non-physicians on this site personally. I am really tired of people resorting to personal attacks. Let's stick to the discussions in a professional manner. 👍

 

[cpw]

thank you andrew... 🙂

 

[aphistis]

I agree with Jenny. Plugs and FB removal are procedures ODs are trained for, can do, and do it well.

Also, please stop attacking non-physicians on this site personally. I am really tired of people resorting to personal attacks. Let's stick to the discussions in a professional manner. 👍

Take a moderator vote and ban Mac. Problem solved.

 

[MacGyver]

Jenny you are the one being disingenuous by suggesting that both sides are warring over neutral territory. This is not two armies battling over unclaimed territory, its an invasion of ODs trying to claim MD turf.

I'll say this one more time:

ODs (like every other nonphysician group) want to do procedures that only MDs can currently perform. Now you show me ONE freaking proposed bill or law in which MDs are trying to encroach on stuff that ONLY ODs do. MDs have the golden goose, and its the ODs trying to fight to steal it.

The bottom line is that opthos dont give a **** about foreign bodies or that other trivial stuff. MDs would give up that battle INSTANTLY if the ODs would agree to quit trying to expand scope of practice into their turf. ODs refuse to do that, so only then do the MDs try to strike back.

I propose a deal between ODs and MDs. The status quo stands. No new legislation to change scope of practice on either side.

Jenny and OD community would NEVER agree to that. That speaks volumes as to their true motivations.

 

[JennyW]

Jenny you are the one being disingenuous by suggesting that both sides are warring over neutral territory. This is not two armies battling over unclaimed territory, its an invasion of ODs trying to claim MD turf.

I'll say this one more time:

ODs (like every other nonphysician group) want to do procedures that only MDs can currently perform. Now you show me ONE freaking proposed bill or law in which MDs are trying to encroach on stuff that ONLY ODs do. MDs have the golden goose, and its the ODs trying to fight to steal it.

The bottom line is that opthos dont give a **** about foreign bodies or that other trivial stuff. MDs would give up that battle INSTANTLY if the ODs would agree to quit trying to expand scope of practice into their turf. ODs refuse to do that, so only then do the MDs try to strike back.

I propose a deal between ODs and MDs. The status quo stands. No new legislation to change scope of practice on either side.

Jenny and OD community would NEVER agree to that. That speaks volumes as to their true motivations.

There isn't going to be a bill like you describe because a medical license is "carte blanche" OMDs are licensed to perform brain surgery, and bypass surgery. Of course, no hospital will give them priviledges, but from a legal standpoint they are licensed to do it. But as I've stated in my post, OMDs continuously try to roll back optometric scope of practice in numerous states, despite the fact that the procedures that are being rolled back are ones that have been performed safely and competantly for years by ODs.

And I don't agree that the OD community would never agree to your deal. In fact, we would welcome it. However, we would not accept the status quo.

We would expect:

That OMDs would support the expanded scope of practice in those states where scope is relatively limited to those where it is relatively broad. (I'm not talking Oklahoma here.) That is to say, the treatment of glaucoma, the removal of foreign bodies, and the use of topical steroids, the use of short term narcotics for pain management among others. The scope of practice of the state of Connecticut is appropriate. Feel free to look it up.

That OMDs would support and encourage optometric participation on 3rd party panels.

In exchange ODs would agree to not try to expand their scope of practice for 20 years.

How's that?

Jenny

 

[Andrew_Doan]

That OMDs would support the expanded scope of practice in those states where scope is relatively limited to those where it is relatively broad. (I'm not talking Oklahoma here.) That is to say, the treatment of glaucoma, the removal of foreign bodies, and the use of topical steroids, the use of short term narcotics for pain management among others. The scope of practice of the state of Connecticut is appropriate. Feel free to look it up.

That OMDs would support and encourage optometric participation on 3rd party panels.

In exchange ODs would agree to not try to expand their scope of practice for 20 years.

How's that?

Jenny

Very interesting. 😉

 

[JennyW]

Very interesting. 😉

Care to comment??

Jenny

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Care to comment??

Jenny

I think it's a good idea. 👍

But I would add that optometry agrees to never expand into surgery. However, if new medical treatments become available, then this can be evaluated for all 50 states.

 

[rpames]

I think the main problem is the wording. Forgien body removal and puncta irrigation is considered "surgery." There needs to be a defining of words. But sometimes the laws are written with very lose wording so as new procedures become available we can take them on, like new drug types. But this also leads to the problems that we are seeing in OK.

 

[JennyW]

I think it's a good idea. 👍

But I would add that optometry agrees to never expand into surgery. However, if new medical treatments become available, then this can be evaluated for all 50 states.

As long as the word "surgery" does not include the "surgical" procedures that we have talked about in the past, then we would probably be really close to a deal.

See, Dr. Doan? In 15 minutes, you and I solved the problem that years of tired rhetoric couldn't. Maybe we should both run for office. 😎

Jenny

 

[mdkurt]

As long as the word "surgery" does not include the "surgical" procedures that we have talked about in the past, then we would probably be really close to a deal.


Jenny

sounds like a rational approach. 5:44am? Did the baby get you up?

 

[MacGyver]

And I don't agree that the OD community would never agree to your deal. In fact, we would welcome it. However, we would not accept the status quo.

Exactly. Even if MDs guaranteed the rights of ODs to do foreign body removal and punctal crap in perpetuity the ODs arent satisfied with that they want to invade more turf.

We would expect:

That OMDs would support the expanded scope of practice in those states where scope is relatively limited to those where it is relatively broad. (I'm not talking Oklahoma here.) That is to say, the treatment of glaucoma, the removal of foreign bodies, and the use of topical steroids, the use of short term narcotics for pain management among others. The scope of practice of the state of Connecticut is appropriate. Feel free to look it up.

That OMDs would support and encourage optometric participation on 3rd party panels.

In exchange ODs would agree to not try to expand their scope of practice for 20 years.

Change 20 years to FOREVER and I'll think about it. Please this is a joke of a deal. MDs give up those concessions in exchange for what? A 20 year "promise" of no new scope expansions? Only a fool would fall for that.

As a sly OD, you are being totally disingenuous again. You know good and well that once expanded scope is handed out, the chances of it being rescinded are nil. So it would be a win/win for ODs and a lose/lose for MDs. MDs would make those concessions in exchange for nothing, because 20 years down the line the original concessions are never going to be rescinded and yet the ODs still get to pursue their radical agenda of trying to take over eye surgery.

Change your deal to state that ODs NEVER get expanded surgery rights. That means they NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN IN A 100 YEARS, GET TO DO LASIK or any other new surgery methods that might be developed. MDs dont give a flip about script rights, you can script whatever you want as far as they care. We want no new surgical privileges EVER for the ODs. You and your cronies wont agree to that, and instead want to try and fight turf battles to invade other peoples scope of practice.

The "deal" you proposed does nothing for MDs. Basically what you are saying is "give us concessions and we'll wait for 20 years before trying any new turf wars." What kind of a "deal" is that for the MDs?

 

[JennyW]

Change your deal to state that ODs NEVER get expanded surgery rights. That means they NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN IN A 100 YEARS, GET TO DO LASIK or any other new surgery methods that might be developed. MDs dont give a flip about script rights, you can script whatever you want as far as they care. We want no new surgical privileges EVER for the ODs. You and your cronies wont agree to that, and instead want to try and fight turf battles to invade other peoples scope of practice.

The "deal" you proposed does nothing for MDs. Basically what you are saying is "give us concessions and we'll wait for 20 years before trying any new turf wars." What kind of a "deal" is that for the MDs?

Absolutely not would I ever say NEVER. 20 years ago, punctal occlusion was accomplished mainly through cautery. What if new "surgical" techniques such as that are developed? Since CRT has become more popular in my area, there isn't enough LASIK to go around for the $299 per eye LASIK jockies. So OMDs in our local society drafted a petition to try to get CRT declared a "surgical" procedure since you're "altering corneal shape" with it and therefore, ODs should not be doing it.

As long as OMDs are going to try to have procedures like that declared "surgical" then I guess ODs are going to have to continue to fight for "surgical" rights. As far as I'm concerned Mac, you can take your LASIK, and your YAGs, and your PIs, and your cataracts, and cram them. Consider yourself lucky that we would even offer a deal like the one I offered.

No expanded scope of practice for 20 years is one generation. I would say that's pretty damn generous.

Jenny

 

[Andrew_Doan]

What if new "surgical" techniques such as that are developed? Since CRT has become more popular in my area, there isn't enough LASIK to go around for the $299 per eye LASIK jockies. So OMDs in our local society drafted a petition to try to get CRT declared a "surgical" procedure since you're "altering corneal shape" with it and therefore, ODs should not be doing it.

As long as OMDs are going to try to have procedures like that declared "surgical" then I guess ODs are going to have to continue to fight for "surgical" rights.

Jenny,

What happened to your previous ideas?

As long as the word "surgery" does not include the "surgical" procedures that we have talked about in the past, then we would probably be really close to a deal.

See, Dr. Doan? In 15 minutes, you and I solved the problem that years of tired rhetoric couldn't. Maybe we should both run for office. 😎

Jenny

I think CRT is a surgical procedure. There's no reason for ODs to venture into permanently changing the anatomy of the eye.

Jenny, I think you're reasonable; however, it seems that deep inside, you envision the development of the optometric surgeon. How can MDs trust your proposals when you have outbursts like the one displayed above? Likewise, views from MacGyver are emotionally packed. Although I agree with his ideas, his approach is always an in-your-face rebuttal.

Thus, now we can see why this debate has been heated for decades and will continue to be highly controversial.

 

[JennyW]

Jenny,

What happened to your previous ideas?



I think CRT is a surgical procedure. There's no reason for ODs to venture into permanently changing the anatomy of the eye.

Jenny, I think you're reasonable; however, it seems that deep inside, you envision the development of the optometric surgeon. How can MDs trust your proposals when you have outbursts like the one displayed above? Likewise, views from MacGyver are emotionally packed. Although I agree with his ideas, his approach is always an in-your-face rebuttal.

Thus, now we can see why this debate has been heated for decades and will continue to be highly controversial.

CRT (corneal refractive therapy) does not permanently change the anatomy of the eye. It is reversable upon discontinuation of the contact lens. (I think we're talking about different CRTs here) I don't envision optometric surgeons. You're right. I had an outburst. I'll go stand in the corner for a while, but MacGyver started it!!! 😀

My previous idea and offer still stands. I think i'd prefer to debate this with you and Kurt. You're both much more reasonable.

 

[MacGyver]

JennyW,

you and I both know that if opticians started lobbying for the rights to do their own eye exams and contact lens/glasses prescriptions you guys would fight it to the death, EVEN if there was extra training for the opticians to do those things.

You encroach on other people's turf, cry foul when they fight back, and then your profession has the audacity to deny the same turf encroachments by lesser trained individuals.

There's a word for this kind of behavior and I'll let you figure that one out.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

CRT (corneal refractive therapy) does not permanently change the anatomy of the eye. It is reversable upon discontinuation of the contact lens. (I think we're talking about different CRTs here) I don't envision optometric surgeons. You're right. I had an outburst. I'll go stand in the corner for a while, but MacGyver started it!!! 😀

My previous idea and offer still stands. I think i'd prefer to debate this with you and Kurt. You're both much more reasonable.

My error. I thought you meant Conductive Keratoplasty (CK). Sorry. 👍

 

[JennyW]

JennyW,

you and I both know that if opticians started lobbying for the rights to do their own eye exams and contact lens/glasses prescriptions you guys would fight it to the death, EVEN if there was extra training for the opticians to do those things.

You encroach on other people's turf, cry foul when they fight back, and then your profession has the audacity to deny the same turf encroachments by lesser trained individuals.

There's a word for this kind of behavior and I'll let you figure that one out.

Oh please, Mac. We've been over this 100 times. There is nothing wrong with opticians refracting or fitting contact lenses. In many states, they do fit contacts. There is nothing magical or mysterious about refraction. But at least optometric education and licensing is somewhat standard. Opticians aren't even required to be licensed in a number of states. You can be a high school drop out and be an optician in a number of states.

The objection ODs have (and the Ophthalmology academy has also come out against opticians refracting) is that there would be no health screening of the eye.

That's a lot more of a ligitimate concern than the OMDs who 20 years ago tried to convice the public that ODs would be blinding their patients with proparacaine, or killing them with tropicamide if we dared to dilate the pupil without having attended medical school.

Cmon.

Jenny

 

[MacGyver]

The objection ODs have (and the Ophthalmology academy has also come out against opticians refracting) is that there would be no health screening of the eye.

Still being disingenuous. You would oppose it NO MATTER WHAT, even if the opticians were given special training to handle those issues. Like I said, ODs criticize the MDs reasoning for not expanding scope and then the ODs hypocritically turn around and use the EXACT SAME JUSTIFICATION to hinder opticians. Its the same with all the non-physician groups.

I always get a good laugh when I hear non-physicians say this is about increasing public access to healthcare when it involves expanding their scope, but then hypocritically they oppose the same reasoning when it applies to lesser trained individuals.

 

[JennyW]

Still being disingenuous. You would oppose it NO MATTER WHAT, even if the opticians were given special training to handle those issues. Like I said, ODs criticize the MDs reasoning for not expanding scope and then the ODs hypocritically turn around and use the EXACT SAME JUSTIFICATION to hinder opticians. Its the same with all the non-physician groups.

I always get a good laugh when I hear non-physicians say this is about increasing public access to healthcare when it involves expanding their scope, but then hypocritically they oppose the same reasoning when it applies to lesser trained individuals.

And what special training would that be Mac?? You're the one who thinks that allopathic medical education is the ONLY POSSIBLE path to enlightenment. 🙄

As far as I'm concerned, opticians can refract and dispense contact lenses all they want. I don't have a dispensary in my office.

Jenny