- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 125
x
- Thread starter fonziefonz
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 5,216
- Optometrist
This poll is unhelpful...
1) You haven't defined "surgery"
2) You haven't given an option for minor surgery but NOT lasik
Yeah, this is pretty pointless unless you're trying to start another OD vs OMD war. And for what it's worth, I think there already is "proper training" in place. It's commonly referred to as medical school.
For the life of me I cannot understand why some ODs and students are so friggin' wound up about surgery. Dear Lord, if you wanted to do surgery so badly you should have gone to med school. This argument gets the profession of optometry nowhere, unless you consider pissing ophthalmology off "getting somewhere".
For the life of me I cannot understand why some ODs and students are so friggin' wound up about surgery. Dear Lord, if you wanted to do surgery so badly you should have gone to med school. This argument gets the profession of optometry nowhere, unless you consider pissing ophthalmology off "getting somewhere".
I just think it's a pointless exercise that has lots of "cons" and virtually no "pros". What exactly are we hoping to gain here? Lasik? Whoopee. Forgive me if I'm not ecstatic at the thought. Could someone show me that there is an actual need for more surgeons? The way I see it, we wind up creating a whole lot of animosity for what? So a few cowboy ODs can do PRK? Wow. That's almost worth it. How about we concentrate our efforts on things that will actually benefit the profession?
That's why you need to define surgery. The current optometric educational system is not set up to make a simple change that will allow for OD's to perform most surgical procedures. The states you are referring to allow for laser procedures and chalazia excisions. While there is disagreement as to whether or not OD's should even perform these procedures, I think everyone would agree that they are not in the same ballbark as cataract extraction, membrane peels, blephs, trabs, etc.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,551
- Location
- Guarded by Ninjas
- Optometry Student
Ditto. 👍
Hopefully this thread doesn't degenerate into yet another OD vs OMD debate. However... the future is looking bleak. 🙁
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 29,133
- Reaction score
- 64,167
- Points
- 12,236
- Attending Physician
Shall we start a pool as to when that occurs?
I'll take tomorrow around 11am. Who else is in?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Optometry Student
I second this. For a poll to be useful (and non-biased), the list of possible answers must take into account every angle on the question.
At the very least, this poll needs an "Other" option.
This poll reminds me of the polls that show up on www.foxsports.com that go something like this:
Who was the best defensive player of the week in the NFL?
A. Derrick Johnson
B. Champ Bailey
C. Ray Lewis
D. The Bear's defensive line
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 29,133
- Reaction score
- 64,167
- Points
- 12,236
- Attending Physician
Sadly, by Price is Right rules, we've both lost.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 353
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
- Optometry Student
Your poll is simple and to the point and I like it!!!!!!!
I vote yes for the second category (minor surgery and lasik) without a residency. With a 3 yr residency I would vote yes for the first category.
Regarding the potential flaming which is enevitable---I just think it is sad and pathetic that adults cannot have a logical and civil discussion regarding this topic....Health care is dooomed! lol Just sad.
I vote yes for the second category (minor surgery and lasik) without a residency. With a 3 yr residency I would vote yes for the first category.
Regarding the potential flaming which is enevitable---I just think it is sad and pathetic that adults cannot have a logical and civil discussion regarding this topic....Health care is dooomed! lol Just sad.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,551
- Location
- Guarded by Ninjas
- Optometry Student
I'm going to guess a lot of the people who do the flaming would not be so bold in real life. 🙄
I think the earlier post was correct in stating that, if you wanted to perform surgery, why didnt you go to medical school? I see optometrists as generalists of the eye in primary care and believe we do that job perfectly well without having to delve into surgical practice. Surely if we spent our time focussing on the many, many things we do perform, we would benefit society more than by searching to perform tasks which, no matter how you look at it, we are less qualified to perform.
This is not an argument of whether optometric education is enough in depth... its obvious to anyone who has studied in a field such as this that we study well and truly more than any one person could ever utilize or remember. My point is this; there is no dire shortage of ophthalmologists. Why should we dig into their expertise, when there is enough turf on our side of the fence?
This is not an argument of whether optometric education is enough in depth... its obvious to anyone who has studied in a field such as this that we study well and truly more than any one person could ever utilize or remember. My point is this; there is no dire shortage of ophthalmologists. Why should we dig into their expertise, when there is enough turf on our side of the fence?
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Optometrist
I think the real question is, Would an optometrist want to be an eye surgeon?
The answer for me is no.
As for the question about therapeutics, Here in australia it depends on the state you practice in and the year you graduated. Some states do not allow optometrists to prescribe ocular medicines.
Graduates after 2005? are therapeutically qualified as a therapeutics component was incorporated into the course. The therapeutics course was also offered as a diploma for earlier graduates.
When it comes to advantages, for me the only advantage would be being able to follow up my own patient without the need to send to an ophthal to prescribe something I can and also makes my job a bit more interesting seeing some pathology and following it up.
I think realistically, for the time being not many people get use out of their therapeutics as it is still early days. People still generally go to their GP when they have a red eye who routinely prescribe Chloramphenicol without investigating the cause. So unless their is more awareness amongst patients as to what an optometrist can actually do, they will tend to go to someone else for the medicine even though we may be more qualified to examine/diagnose/manage the ocular condition.
The answer for me is no.
As for the question about therapeutics, Here in australia it depends on the state you practice in and the year you graduated. Some states do not allow optometrists to prescribe ocular medicines.
Graduates after 2005? are therapeutically qualified as a therapeutics component was incorporated into the course. The therapeutics course was also offered as a diploma for earlier graduates.
When it comes to advantages, for me the only advantage would be being able to follow up my own patient without the need to send to an ophthal to prescribe something I can and also makes my job a bit more interesting seeing some pathology and following it up.
I think realistically, for the time being not many people get use out of their therapeutics as it is still early days. People still generally go to their GP when they have a red eye who routinely prescribe Chloramphenicol without investigating the cause. So unless their is more awareness amongst patients as to what an optometrist can actually do, they will tend to go to someone else for the medicine even though we may be more qualified to examine/diagnose/manage the ocular condition.
Last edited: