Creation of an Optometric Surgery Residency (analagous to OMFS for Dental)

[dpmPOD]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hello07]

Everyone, we are OPTOMETRISTS. Period. Wth all the rights and dues we practice according to each state law in this country. We are Doctors of Optometry. Why are a few OD's in and out of school trying to emulate MD's? For prestige and higher public acceptance? Or is it for the $$$?
I ask each and every one of you if you were to ever practice to a city ie- California, Chicago, Texas, NY, Boston.......and a member of your family needs medical eye attention, are you going to take over and perform a subconj injection for whatever reason or actually treat a retinal problem that needs lasert tx? Or how about that difficult glaucoma case your aunt has that can't be controlled with drops? who are we kidding?
If your own eyes are in some sort of danger that could result in blindness, are you going to an OD for medical or surgical treatment?
Please.............................................

 

[KHE]

I am perplexed as to why this discussion continuously gets framed in the context of "progressive" vs "old school." You can rest assured that I am as "progressive" as any optometrist in the nation.

This debate is really about what is ultimately going to be best for the profession and I STRONGLY believe that the pursuit of invasive ocular surgery is NOT going to be in the long term best interests of the profession for the reasons I have outlined dozens of times. What you "pro surgery" people are essentially advocating is blowing optometry's entire wad of political and financial capital to gain the rights to do procedures for which there is very little demand for in an optometrists office, and for which you will NEVER EVER be considered an equal alternative to "those other guys." You will ALWAYS be perceived as second tier, back door surgeons. This is NOT in the best interests of the profession.

There are simply far too many issues on optometry's plate that need to be dealt with and the pursuit of ocular surgery ranks way down on the list.

I also remain perplexed as to how optometry students, and pre optometry students became such authorities on what amount of training is needed to produce a quality ophthalmic surgeon. The argument seems to continuously be that ophthalmologists don't use much of their medical school knowledge as part of their ophthalmology practices. HOW, IN THE NAME OF CHRIST DOES ANY OPTOMETRY STUDENT KNOW THIS? And by using that logic, does that apply to EVERY medical specialty?

Why don't we just bag medical school altogether and just allow people to apply to residency training programs right out of undergraduate?

Guys we are optometrists and optometry students on an OPTOMETRY forum so let's keep the emotions out of this......

That said, I for one feel that both terms optometrist and ophthalmologist are equally respectable just representing different fields of eye care. I will agree with gochi that a lot of what MD's learn in medical school has absolutely no relevance in medical or surgical eye care. I have taken classes with medical students, I study WITH them, and as Indiana OD has so eloquently stated----"How do you explain Ophthalmologists from other countries that have a 4 yr Opthalmology school and can do the SAME things as US-trained OMD's." There is one in my class (a foreign trained opthalmologist--who practiced ophthalmology for 7 yrs) and moved to the US and found that it would be too time consuming to repeat a great deal of her medical-opthalmological training here and decided to do a 2 yr accelerated OD program because she already has an MD. Even she thinks that the training in the US is protracted and too long. They could have a 6 year program (total) in ophthalmology with the last 3 yrs being clinical and train excellent ophthalmologists. Tradition and "this is the way it has always been done", money, etc....would not allow that to happen in the US. Again relating this back to an optometric surgery residency------------> you can train OD's in a 3-4 year residency to do ophthalmic surgery! Jesus, I Know that KHE and Hello 07, and Caffenated, are "old school" about this and I can respect that but students such as myself are PROGRESSIVE and we believe in proactivity and forward thinking. Even OD school could be trimmed of some academic "fat" and then add some more invasive procedures training, throw in rotations through internal medicine, ophthalmology, etc....(I am doing this on my own with permission in a special program) and you have the template to launch the future from.

 

[KHE]

This isn't the case at all. I can't speak for the others, but I look forward to dealing with pink eye, binocular disorders and other "ugly" areas of optometric care--those are paramount reasons I chose optometry in the first place. It's absolutely not about image--I'm pretty sure evaporating cornea stroma isn't that sexy either. Yes I've heard it 100000 times now from your posts--supply and demand, politics, money, no forum for optometric surgeons, etc. The disconnect between the optometry students and the ODs seems to be the "definition of surgery". Do me this favor [all of you "old dogs" that feel that the dirty no good rotten optometry students are delirious and belligerent and rude to their elders], flash forward 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years--where do you see optometry going? How will technology be different [will refractive surgery even exist--will we have a one-time use gas perm lens with a magical drop that cures refractive error]? Flash back 10 years, 20 years, 30+ years--Ken I'm sure your current modality of practice would not be the same had you been an optometrist some 30 years ago--would you be alright with that? Maybe surgery isn't the answer, but progress and evolving with technology is. Like the saying goes, "you can't make an omlete without breaking a few eggs."

No one on here has EVER even come close to suggesting that optometrists should not be evolving with technology. That's insane. However, the pursuit of surgical rights is not the way to do it.

As to predicting the future, I would not hazard a guess at 50 or 100 years from now, but I believe that in the next 10-20 years you will see the following:

1) Contact lenses that are so biocompatable that patients sleep in them for a year.
2) Contact lenses and lacrimal inserts that dispense medications for chronic conditions like glaucoma and uveitits
3) Refractive surgery in it's present form will be non existent. I believe that we will look back on these times in history and laugh about how crazy we were to be shooting excimer lasers at people's corneas.
4) Spectacle lens technology that is far more advanced than what we have now
5) Gene therapy for many of the genetic conditions that affect vision

Also, the argument that optometrists should be doing surgery because optometry was different 30 years ago to me holds very little water. There is/was a demand for optometrists to be treating pink eye and contact lens complications. There is no demand for optometrists to be doing YAGs and PIs.

Lastly, when you graduate in 2011 you can call me Ken. Until then, Dr. Elder will be fine.

 

[ProZackMI]

There are many interesting and strong opinions on this thread regarding optometrists with specialized training performing ocular surgery in a similar fashion as dentists (without an MD) performing complex OMFS surgery. I think the OP’s question is a valid one, but a misplaced one. It’s the type of question that children frequently ask parents when they perceive an “injustice”, especially in terms of ownership, responsibility, and distribution of goods. You know, “How come Jimmy gets more potato chips than me?”, or “But John gets to stay up till midnight, why can’t I?”. Sometimes it seems like an insurmountable task to pierce the logic of a child, but when you actually analyze the reasons behind why John can stay up till midnight, there is often sound logic behind it, not just parental bias or favoritism.

As a former psychiatrist, now a practicing attorney, I get paid to listen to problems and coming up viable tx/solution plans to those problems. I strongly believe that the history of the problem contains the answer.

I believe the answer to the OP’s original question lies in the history of the dental and optometric professions. Dentistry and podiatry both began as quasi-specialties in medicine. In other words, dentists and pods started off as physicians, and then for whatever reason, began to branch off into their own fields of study with their own schools, training, and degrees. However, the key here is that both dentistry and podiatry grew out of allopathic medicine. As a result, early dentistry and podiatry closely paralleled medicine in form and structure and even culture.

OMFS, which is a clear overlap between dentistry and medicine, grew out of a void in surgical practice. Early OMFS started off as surgeons of the oral cavity and jaws, not the face. Plastic surgeons handled the facial stuff, orthopods and neurosurgeons handled the cervical stuff, and neurosurgeons handled the intracranial stuff. Over time, oral cavity and jaw surgery began to expand to certain aspects of the face and head that were previously reserved for other surgeons. The dentists who performed these surgeries were well-trained, after dental school, to perform surgery, monitor patient vitals, and were, in general, trained in a holistic/systemic medical model, not simply focused on dentistry. Nevertheless, their dental education was quite comprehensive and provided them with a complex foundation of neurology, pathophys, pharm, anatomy and physiology of the head/neck/body, orthopedics of the skull/jaw, vascular anatomy, etc. They learned all of this in dental school, not in their residency, where they learned the hands-on knowledge of actually performing the surgeries.

Based on my understanding, optometry’s origins are found in jewelry-making, mathematics, and optics, not medicine or even biology. Initially, optometrists started off as refracting opticians (not dispensing opticians). These opticians, who were not medically trained and unlicensed, eventually became the first optometrists. (see http://www.opt.indiana.edu/people/faculty/graphics/goss/opthx.pdf). The OD degree was not the standard degree awarded to optometrists until the late 1960s and early 1970s, before that it was BOpt or MOpt (depending on the school). IU graduated its first OD class in 1968, Berkeley in 1970 ( http://www.opt.indiana.edu/people/faculty/graphics/goss/opthx.pdf). In fact, it seems that practicing optometrists (licensed) in the US who did not earn an OD degree, could simply call themselves “Dr.” and append OD after their name once the OD degree became standardized despite the fact they did not even possess the OD.

At any rate, the point of this discussion is to show that despite what optometry has evolved into, it still has a non-medical origin and is often not thought of a true health profession by the general population and other health practitioners. I’m not trying to start a flame, but shed some light on why optometry never evolved into a surgical profession like dentistry.

Optometry’s professional origins make it unique and interesting. Today, it’s a thriving profession with many options for specialization, although, hopefully, surgery will never be one. I say that because I do not think the OD curriculum provides enough systemic medical knowledge to prepare any OD graduate for a surgical residency. I also do not think there is a need or void to fill for ocular surgery. There are plenty of ophthalmologists out there who do a fine job in treating complex ocular problems. If there was a true need, I’m sure there would be an effort to recruit more residents to ophth or even FMGs to fill the void, not allow the creation of an OD (without MD) surgical route.

That being said, I think some of the comments here show that there are frustrated students who really should have tried the MD or DO route rather than optometry. Ocularmotor, you seem to be one of those health professionals that never wanted to really practice optometry (or chiropractic, or psychology, or dentistry, etc.), but really wanted to be a physician/surgeon. You argue that by virtue of your OD degree, you are more than qualified to operate on a human being, monitor your patient’s vitals, understand complex systemic disease processes, manage wound care, treat post operative infections, etc., simply because you have 8 years of schooling, plus your hypothetical residency.

You say you’re insulted that you’d have to do 4 years of medical school after earning your OD in order to do surgery. Do you think a veterinarian who has performed thousands of surgeries on animals would be able to slip into a human surgical residency without earning an MD first? What about a chiropractor who wants to do orthopedic surgery? He has a 3-year professional degree after some undergraduate study, why not let him into a surgical residency? What about the lawyer who wants to now add blood and guts to his resume? He is a “doctor” too with a JD, right? That’s as much schooling as you with your OD, why not let the JD into a post JD residency? What about the AuD who wants to do ENT surgery or the DPT (physical therapist with a doctorate) who wants to do ortho surg? Hell, what about the surgical PA, why not let him/her operate without physician supervision?

I went to college, earned my BA, then did a post-bac MS in biomedical sci, went to medical school for 4 years, earned my MD, completed a 4 year IM/Psych residency, and did a one year fellowship. Do you think the law school admissions people gave a rat’s *** about all of that when I applied? They told me I had to take the LSAT and would only compute my undergrad GPA into my law school admissions, not my graduate and medical GPA, etc. In other words, they pit you against the kids straight out of college and don’t care. The same is true with medical school. In my medical school class at MSU CHM, we had a vet who practiced for 7 years as a veterinary trauma surgeon, several PhDs in biomed sciences, a dentist, and a PharmD who had done a 3 year residency in hospital/nuclear pharm and 2 year fellowship in onco-pharm at the University of Michigan. Do you think any of these folks were given any special preference to get into medical school? HELL NO! So, why should you, with your OD, be given a direct path to surgical residency over a DVM with 7 years of surgical experience or a PharmD with 4 years of post-doc training in onco/nuc med?

I’m not anti-opto. I may come across that way, but I am one of those who will say, “if you want to do surgery, go to medical school.” You really do not want to open the door on the optometry profession by changing it further. Do you want extra liability, erosion of lifestyle, etc.? What would be the difference between you and an OMD? Would you also be doing refracting? Would you really be an optometrist anymore? Given your online persona, I would hasten to guess you'd be one of those who goes around saying "I'm a surgeon", not "I'm an optometrist". Remember your origins, be proud of who are, and stop using the trappings of medicine to fluff yourself up. You don’t need to fluff yourself up – be proud of your identify as an OD. You made that choice to put yourself through 4 years of graduate school in order to be an OD, so why go around emulating medicine? I see it in optometry, chiropractic, and other health professions where they overuse the Dr. title, wear white coats, and use the culture of medicine to make the public think they are physicians rather than optometrists, audiologists, psychologists, chiros, etc. Again, not an attack, but white coats? I remember seeing a chiropractor at a strip mall in Subway one day with a white coat and stethoscope around his neck with Joe Blow, D.C., embroidered on his coat. I laughed my *** off. When I practiced as a psychiatrist, I almost never wore a lab coat. Why would I need one? See, it's the trappings of medicine, not something unique to your profession only. It's the uniqueness of your profession that you should cherish.

Medicine is not as wonderful as others think it might be. There are many doctors, like me, who left after becoming disenfranchised over the health care system in the US. The lifestyle and culture of optometry, whether retail or clinical, is different from medicine and that difference is probably what attracts some students into the profession. Honestly, ODs should be doing more to market what's good and different about optometry, not trying to compare it to medicine. Lose the white coats, the overuse of the doctor title, and loosen up. Your profession is a great one and you should be happy you're not physicians or surgeons and are what you are, well-educated health professionals with a unique skill set. Trust me, you don't want to be part of the medical culture; it's not a healthy one.

Optometry is not medicine. Your scope of practice may evolve further in the years to come, but despite your advanced training, surgery is not likely to be in your future. If this bothers you, maybe you should really rethink your career choice. I would hope that after 4 years of professional school, you would be happy with your choice of professions, but if you’re not, then make the leap and do something else. I did this. I hated medicine and what it has become, so I explored other careers, and decided on law. I had to start from the beginning just like some kid fresh out of undergrad, but in the long run, it was worth it. If you truly covet the lifestyle of a surgeon, look for medical schools that consider advanced standing applicants and go that route.

Cheers,
Zack

 

[Just Applied]

I have been following these threads for quite a while and am quiet shocked at the insecurity level of these future optometrists. I am a third year med student pursuing ophthalmology and hoping to match in January. I am not going to even being to talk about the future of ophthalmology and what they should or should not do because I am not in any place to make such statements. Just by reading certain posts I realize that these optometry students are very upset that they don't get the same level of respect as their OMD counterparts and want to be equals in all respect. From what I have seen, these 2 fields supplement each other and make what we see as global eye care as a whole. What upsets me is these people will be my future colleagues with whom I will be treating my patients with and right now it seems hopeless and really hope that these students grow up and be proud of their profession and help future patients. Right now they just speak and act on emotion without logical thought. Guys in the end you are going to look like "Insecure med school rejects with a inferiority complex" if you do not stop. Practicing optometrists are looking for the best interest for the patients as well as their career. Take their words very strongly because it is the closest view of the real world you actually have.

 

[ProZackMI]

Well, I say you're delusional too. An OMD is a surgical optometrist? What is a psychologist, a non-medical psychiatrist? Is an optician a non-refracting optometrist?

An optometrist is an optometrist, not a physician or surgeon no matter what your degree is, how many years of schooling you have, or what your insurance company allows you to call yourself. An OMD is a surgeon, NOT an optometrist.

It's amazingly ironic that you and oculomotor are purporting to advocate for the optometry profession by calling for surgical residencies after opto (not med) school and thus becoming optometric surgeons. However, what you're really calling for is the erosion of optometry as a unique and distinct profession. If you get what you want, what will the consequences be? More and more ODs will gravitate toward surg residencies and will look down at refraction. What will this mean? You will displace OMDs and take over for less money initially, but since you're now high and mighty surgeons, you'll want more money, will get it, and you'll kill off the refracting ODs and primary care ODs. At that point, the opticians will seize the opportunity to move in and do what primary care ODs and refracting ODs were doing for years.

ODs --> OMDs
OMDs --> more specialized or extinct
opticians --> the new optometrists

Soon, the opticians will want more professional respect, will start wearing white coats, and will call for a Doctor of Refracting Optics degree, and they'll get it, just like the NPs are now DNPs and PTs are DPTs, you'll have Doctor of Optics performing eye exams, refracting, and doing what the high and mighty OD surgeons refuse to do.

In time, they'll ask the same question, why can't we do surgery with additional training? Guess what, they'll get it and good-bye OD surgeons. Watch what you ask for -- you just may get it and once you do, your profession is doomed.

Let me ask all of you "progressive" ODs a valid question. Think of the 5-10 (or more) things that make your profession unique. List those items. Now, if you're an OD surgeon, do you honestly think you'll be doing any of those uniquely optometric functions? How many OMFS do you think fill cavities or do routine dental work? Are OMFS truly dentists anymore? Do you think they identify with their DDS colleagues, or MD surgeons? Take a guess. Who will these new ODs identify with? The lowly Wal-Mart OD or the CT surgeon on staff at the local trauma center?

Now add in other variables like increased litigation and liability, increased insurance costs (malpractice), fighting for hospital privis, insurance reimbursement, etc. Consider this: DOs could perform surgeries in DO hospitals in the 50s and 60s, but could not, under any circumstances, perform surgeries in allo hospitals until the late 60s and 70s, and in some cases, 80s. Do you think your average hospital will allow OD trained surgeons to operate in their hospitals? Not at first. In fact, it'll take years and years as the hospitals will not want the liability. Will your AOA help you get those privileges? After 4 years of college, 4 years of optom school, and 3-4 years of residency, do you think you'll be able to afford the insurance to perform surgery when you're restricted from doing it in most hospitals or clinics? Are you going to form optometric hospitals like the old osteopathic hospitals? Maybe after your surgical residency, when you can't afford to actually perform surgeries, since you're restricted from doing so in most states and hospitals, you will end up at Wal-Mart anyway.

Hmm...why is that disrespectful ? It's true. What I meant to say was that an ophthalmologist is primarily a surgical OD, and secondarily a physician, who will most likely never use what he/she has learned to earn his/her MD. At least thats the impression I get, when you consider the amount of schooling one has to go through to become an Ophthalmologist, excluding the first three years of medical school. And to expect an OD to go through all that BS is absolutely absurd.

Again, the amount of education one has over another individual does not dictate the degree, if any, of respect that individual should expect. Unfortunately, the world runs in the opposite way. An example of this pertaining to Optometry is the discrimination against OD's from insurance panels. The idea of implementing surgery into the already sophisticated curriculum of optometry schools would surely eliminate this discrimination as well as fix up other problems. Now you may think my reason is illogical, but who are you sir ? Actually, you don't have to answer that, since its irrelevant. It may seem that I'm "disrespectful" but I assure you, I am not. I'm simply stating what I see to be the ultimate truth.

 

[prettygreeneyes]

Guys in the end you are going to look like "Insecure med school rejects with a inferiority complex" if you do not stop. Practicing optometrists are looking for the best interest for the patients as well as their career. Take their words very strongly because it is the closest view of the real world you actually have.

It is almost useless to bring this up, but please recognize these students who are labeling the practicing docs as "old school" for not getting on the "Surgery by Optometrists" bandwagon DO NOT speak for the majority of optometry students. I am not a med school reject, nor do I have an inferiority complex. I do NOT want to perform surgery of any sort (beyond FB removal, chalazions, etc) as I feel there are so many things about optometry to be fixed before we ever venture into the realm of surgery. ODs in some states can't even prescribe oral meds, and we want to create a surgical residency? Why? ODs are excluded from insurance panels simply because they are optometrists. We can't even get paid for the basic medical conditions we do treat in some states, and we want to do surgery? Why? Because some students and a handful of doctors realize that they picked the wrong profession and want a quick and easy fix to their misery? As KHE said, optometry should be celebrating its differences from ophthalmology, not trying to eliminate them. The approach we have to vision is unique, and is not something that should be lost as we try to mold ourselves into junior MDs.

 

[WoodyJI]

It is almost useless to bring this up, but please recognize these students who are labeling the practicing docs as "old school" for not getting on the "Surgery by Optometrists" bandwagon DO NOT speak for the majority of optometry students. I am not a med school reject, nor do I have an inferiority complex. I do NOT want to perform surgery of any sort (beyond FB removal, chalazions, etc) as I feel there are so many things about optometry to be fixed before we ever venture into the realm of surgery. ......As KHE said, optometry should be celebrating its differences from ophthalmology, not trying to eliminate them. The approach we have to vision is unique, and is not something that should be lost as we try to mold ourselves into junior MDs.

I want to lend weight to her post because she is right in so many ways. Most of us do not make the time to post on these forums, because a lot of this stuff we've seen/read before, and really there are better things for us to be doing right now as students like...you know...the stuff we're supposed to be studying. In any case, they are important dialogues, and they can be very pertinent. For instance, I heard that optometrists aren't included on the list of health service providers to receive federal funding for working in underserved areas of the country. As someone who has volunteered his time and done pro bono work, I feel like things of that nature are more important for us to address than trying to get surgical rights.

 

[gochi]

Isn't it your position that an Ophthalmologist is just a "surgical OD?". You also state you'll never become one. If so, why are you as an optometrist, even pushing for surgery? By your own argument, the issue is moot.

Hypothetically, would a person go to an ophthalmologist to get surgery or an OD who has been trained to do surgery ?

The reason why I'm pushing for surgery is so that OD's are not discriminated from insurance panels. After that, I'm sure other good things will evolve.

I never said I was actually going to do surgery, after a residency.

BTW, nice sub-name

 

[gochi]

Who gives a rat's *** about what the public thinks? Please tell me you're not using THAT as a reason to get surgical rights.

And as far as forgetting thing goes, that's a dumb reason too. Guess what, I've been out of school one year and have forgotten a bunch of what I learned in optometry school. Does that mean opticians should be able to take over my job?

I'm surprised no ophthalmologists have jumped down your throat yet. They certainly have every right to.

Goodness...eyestrain, try to read my post without having your ignorance block it.

 

[gochi]

Well, I say you're delusional too. An OMD is a surgical optometrist? What is a psychologist, a non-medical psychiatrist? Is an optician a non-refracting optometrist?

An optometrist is an optometrist, not a physician or surgeon no matter what your degree is, how many years of schooling you have, or what your insurance company allows you to call yourself. An OMD is a surgeon, NOT an optometrist.

It's amazingly ironic that you and oculomotor are purporting to advocate for the optometry profession by calling for surgical residencies after opto (not med) school and thus becoming optometric surgeons. However, what you're really calling for is the erosion of optometry as a unique and distinct profession. If you get what you want, what will the consequences be? More and more ODs will gravitate toward surg residencies and will look down at refraction. What will this mean? You will displace OMDs and take over for less money initially, but since you're now high and mighty surgeons, you'll want more money, will get it, and you'll kill off the refracting ODs and primary care ODs. At that point, the opticians will seize the opportunity to move in and do what primary care ODs and refracting ODs were doing for years.

ODs --> OMDs
OMDs --> more specialized or extinct
opticians --> the new optometrists

Soon, the opticians will want more professional respect, will start wearing white coats, and will call for a Doctor of Refracting Optics degree, and they'll get it, just like the NPs are now DNPs and PTs are DPTs, you'll have Doctor of Optics performing eye exams, refracting, and doing what the high and mighty OD surgeons refuse to do.

In time, they'll ask the same question, why can't we do surgery with additional training? Guess what, they'll get it and good-bye OD surgeons. Watch what you ask for -- you just may get it and once you do, your profession is doomed.

Let me ask all of you "progressive" ODs a valid question. Think of the 5-10 (or more) things that make your profession unique. List those items. Now, if you're an OD surgeon, do you honestly think you'll be doing any of those uniquely optometric functions? How many OMFS do you think fill cavities or do routine dental work? Are OMFS truly dentists anymore? Do you think they identify with their DDS colleagues, or MD surgeons? Take a guess. Who will these new ODs identify with? The lowly Wal-Mart OD or the CT surgeon on staff at the local trauma center?

Now add in other variables like increased litigation and liability, increased insurance costs (malpractice), fighting for hospital privis, insurance reimbursement, etc. Consider this: DOs could perform surgeries in DO hospitals in the 50s and 60s, but could not, under any circumstances, perform surgeries in allo hospitals until the late 60s and 70s, and in some cases, 80s. Do you think your average hospital will allow OD trained surgeons to operate in their hospitals? Not at first. In fact, it'll take years and years as the hospitals will not want the liability. Will your AOA help you get those privileges? After 4 years of college, 4 years of optom school, and 3-4 years of residency, do you think you'll be able to afford the insurance to perform surgery when you're restricted from doing it in most hospitals or clinics? Are you going to form optometric hospitals like the old osteopathic hospitals? Maybe after your surgical residency, when you can't afford to actually perform surgeries, since you're restricted from doing so in most states and hospitals, you will end up at Wal-Mart anyway.

Believe it or not Optometrist=Optometric Physician.

So you say an Ophthalmologist, is not an Optometrist. True, but why are OMD's starting a war with OD's. For example, recently a student went to an OMD for a check-up, or something minor, the OMD asked her what she was going to do in terms of career choice. She said Optometry, the OMD abruptly replied with negativity. Why did the OMD reply with disgust pertaining to the profession of Optometry ? Was it because he thought that she would no longer visit him/her for her standard check up ? Why did the student visit an Ophthalmologist, instead of an OD when she knew that an Ophthalmologist is a surgeon ?

Like oculamotor said, the OD's who want to do surgery will have to meet selective requirements, so the amount of nationwide graduating OD's who can do surgery will be negligible relative to the amount of nationwide graduating OMD's.

Go ahead, get your pathetic white coat but the ultimate truth is that Opticians will never become Optometrists without having gone to OD school, which is mainly the reason why they are Opticians and not OD's. Opticians don't want to be or can't be Optometrists.


It seems to me that in the USA optometry is declining towards doom, due to corporate Optometry, and displacing the profession away from this can be accomplished by allowing dedicated OD's to perform minor surgery at first.

You are taking what I have said to gross exaggeration.

Anyways, OD's performing surgery is inevitable. I'm sure many of the OD's would go against this, but realistically what are they going to do? Just look at corporate optometry.

 

[ProZackMI]

Believe it or not Optometrist=Optometric Physician.

So you say an Ophthalmologist, is not an Optometrist. True, but why are OMD's starting a war with OD's. For example, recently a student went to an OMD for a check-up, or something minor, the OMD asked her what she was going to do in terms of career choice. She said Optometry, the OMD abruptly replied with negativity. Why did the OMD reply with disgust pertaining to the profession of Optometry ? Was it because he thought that she would no longer visit him/her for her standard check up ? Why did the student visit an Ophthalmologist, instead of an OD when she knew that an Ophthalmologist is a surgeon ?

This is your anecdotal evidence, not mine. How would I know why this so-called OD student went to an OMD. Furthermore, who knows why or if the OMD actually said something negative about optometry. Assuming he did, so what? Isn't that his opinion? This story proves what exactly? That one a-hole OMD was mean to an OD student? Yeah, and this means what? A-holes exist in medicine and optometry, right? By the way, an optometrist = an optometrist. There really is no such thing as optometric physician and you we all know it. Are there pharmaceutical physicians, nurse physicians, veterinary physicians, psychological physicians, and physical therapy physicians too? Where do you/we draw line on misusing that term in order to dupe the public into assuming something that isn't true? Do you have a problem calling yourself an optometrist? If I were an OD, I would be proud to call myself one, but apparently, you need that physician moniker to make you feel whole and complete. I guess you are like the insecure chiro who goes around calling himself chiropractic physician wearing his white coat with his stethoscope in order to induce hapless patients into thinking he attended med school?

Go ahead, get your pathetic white coat but the ultimate truth is that Opticians will never become Optometrists without having gone to OD school, which is mainly the reason why they are Opticians and not OD's. Opticians don't want to be or can't be Optometrists.

My pathetic white coat? I believe that I clearly stated that despite the fact I'm an MD, I rarely wear a white coat, unlike most ODs who get their name embroidered on it, and wear it around their optical shop as though it were a clinic or hospital making everyone call them "doctor". You don't see the PTs and PharmDs overusing the title "doctor" and using terms like "mobility doctors" or "drug doctors", do you? Again, these are the trappings of medicine, not optometry. Rather than creating your own professional niche and identity, you emulate physicians because it either puffs up your egos, or induces that medical trust in the public. If you dropped the "doctor" title, the pathetic white coat (your words), and the quasi-medical BS, maybe you'd forge your own identity and be secure in who you are.

Also, look at your statement about opticians not becoming optometrists without going to opto school. Funny, isn't that what physicians are saying about you ODs? You said, "ultimate truth is that Opticians will never become Optometrists without having gone to OD school, which is mainly the reason why they are Opticians and not OD's." No, the ultimate truth is that optometrists will never become surgeons without having gone to medical school, which is mainly the reason why they are optometrists, not surgeons. Right? Yeah, I thought so.

You are taking what I have said to gross exaggeration. Anyways, OD's performing surgery is inevitable. I'm sure many of the OD's would go against this, but realistically what are they going to do? Just look at corporate optometry.

I can see gaining unrestricted RxPs for ODs, but surgical and hospital privis will never follow in the way you say it will. It is not inevitable. If they do, do you think there will be any corporate optometry left?

 

[eyestrain]

Believe it or not Optometrist=Optometric Physician.

Optometrist=Optometric Physician to the ODs with massive inferiority complexes. The rest of us are just optometrists who aren't all worried about being treated like "real doctors".

Go ahead, get your pathetic white coat but the ultimate truth is that Opticians will never become Optometrists without having gone to OD school, which is mainly the reason why they are Opticians and not OD's. Opticians don't want to be or can't be Optometrists.

Wow. I hope you're able to realize the irony in that statement. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Caffeinated]

Like I said, Opthamologists are over-trained. When you are practising, when will you ever be required to deliver a baby ? Never. All those hours spent doing those tedious tasks, is simply a waste really.

So delivering babies is the gold-standard that defines a physician? I know a psychiatrist -- she doesn't deliver babies. I also have good friends who are in internists -- and they will deliver exactly zero babies during residency. I even know gynecologists who have stopped doing obstetrics. My neurologist friends don't deliver babies. Come to think of it, my radiologist friends and my neurosurgeon friends don't deliver babies either. Are none of them physicians? Of course they are physicians.

Since you are obviously unaware of how the system works, allow me to give you a primer on how physicians work together and why specialists (like ophthalmologists) need to have a broad medical education and training. There are some physicians who provide primary care, and there are consultants. These consultants, when called upon, may advise the primary team on management, and help make a determination if the concerns of the primary team can safely be managed by the primary team. Since you seem to be fond of obstetrics, here's an example to wrap your mind around. A 24 yo female comes to an Emergency Dept with RLQ pain, LMP 7 weeks ago. The ED physician finds an ectopic on TVUS, but the patient is still hemodynamically stable. So the ED calls their friendly neighborhood Ob-Gyn to see if the patient should go to emergent surgery tonight, routine surgery in a few days, or a start a trial of medical management with MTX, with the first dose dispensed by the ED, and routine f/u with Ob-Gyn as an outpatient. Here's another example where the Ob-Gyn is the primary instead of the consultant. An obese 27 year-old G2P1 at 28 weeks with hx of uncomplicated LTCS for breech presentation 2 yrs ago. Pt wants to a trial of VBAC with this pregnancy. At 28 weeks, pt develops headaches, TVOs. Ob-Gyn thinks they see optic nerve elevation, but can't be quite sure. So Ob-Gyn consults their friendly neighborhood ophthalmologist to find out if this is really papilledema, and pt is found to have pseudotumor after a work-up by the ophthalmologist. Ob-Gyn wants guidance from their colleague and fellow physician (the ophthalmologist) about any precautions or contraindications to a trial of labor v. scheduled repeat C/S. Obviously the ophthalmologist is not going to deliver the baby, nor will the ophthalmologist make the final determination if pt is safe for a trial of labor versus C/S. However, the primary team (in this case, Ob-Gyn) expects their consultant and fellow physicians (in this scenario, the ophthalmologist) to have a working knowledge of labor and delivery, prenatal and perinatal care, etc. So even though I will not be delivering babies as an ophthalmologist, I guess all that time on my Ob-Gyn rotations was not time wasted.

Just because you have gone throw this does not give you the right to prevent OD's who have not gone through med school, to incorporate surgery into there practice.

As a physician, I have a duty to protect the health of my patients and to protect the health of the public. I think I can make a strong case that optometrists should NOT be doing surgery, and that ocular surgery should remain in the hands of ophthalmology. That said, I have the right (and a duty) to prevent ODs from doing surgery.

Now, if I was a physican, those tasks would be helpfull to go through, but for an Opthamologist, it makes absolutley no sense.

Ophthalmologists are physicians. This is not a matter of opinion. It's fact.

And as an opthamologist, you are primarily a surgical OD, not a physician, which is not what is implied.

This is a joke, right? If so, it's not that funny. If you're serious, then please reread this post until you understand why you are wrong.

 

[gochi]

This is your anecdotal evidence, not mine. How would I know why this so-called OD student went to an OMD. Furthermore, who knows why or if the OMD actually said something negative about optometry. Assuming he did, so what? Isn't that his opinion? This story proves what exactly? That one a-hole OMD was mean to an OD student? Yeah, and this means what? A-holes exist in medicine and optometry, right? By the way, an optometrist = an optometrist. There really is no such thing as optometric physician and you we all know it. Are there pharmaceutical physicians, nurse physicians, veterinary physicians, psychological physicians, and physical therapy physicians too? Where do you/we draw line on misusing that term in order to dupe the public into assuming something that isn't true? Do you have a problem calling yourself an optometrist? If I were an OD, I would be proud to call myself one, but apparently, you need that physician moniker to make you feel whole and complete. I guess you are like the insecure chiro who goes around calling himself chiropractic physician wearing his white coat with his stethoscope in order to induce hapless patients into thinking he attended med school?



My pathetic white coat? I believe that I clearly stated that despite the fact I'm an MD, I rarely wear a white coat, unlike most ODs who get their name embroidered on it, and wear it around their optical shop as though it were a clinic or hospital making everyone call them "doctor". You don't see the PTs and PharmDs overusing the title "doctor" and using terms like "mobility doctors" or "drug doctors", do you? Again, these are the trappings of medicine, not optometry. Rather than creating your own professional niche and identity, you emulate physicians because it either puffs up your egos, or induces that medical trust in the public. If you dropped the "doctor" title, the pathetic white coat (your words), and the quasi-medical BS, maybe you'd forge your own identity and be secure in who you are.

Also, look at your statement about opticians not becoming optometrists without going to opto school. Funny, isn't that what physicians are saying about you ODs? You said, "ultimate truth is that Opticians will never become Optometrists without having gone to OD school, which is mainly the reason why they are Opticians and not OD's." No, the ultimate truth is that optometrists will never become surgeons without having gone to medical school, which is mainly the reason why they are optometrists, not surgeons. Right? Yeah, I thought so.



I can see gaining unrestricted RxPs for ODs, but surgical and hospital privis will never follow in the way you say it will. It is not inevitable. If they do, do you think there will be any corporate optometry left?

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=514862

^ This is the "anecdotal evidence." Please, I don't make stuff up.

You are either an idiot, or misinformed like all egotistic medical doc's. Ask any NOVA student, and they will tell you the term "Optometric Physician" is neatly printed on there scrubs.

I don't know what is exactly wrong with you. I never said I hate calling myself an Optometrist. Really, why are you asserting these falsified statements ? Are you upset or something ? I mean, if I am, I'll stop the logic. I'm actually pretty amazed at a 37 year old "doctor" talking like this. You finally came out of your shell.

About the pathetic white coat. You mis-interpreted what I was saying, or maybe you may think I was not clear. Anyhow, I was refering to Opticians and not you.

Hmm...what makes you think you, an MD, are the only ones capable of wearing a white coat ? What makes you think you are the only one's to be called doctors ?
What makes you think a white coat, and the term "doctor" are strictly trappings of Medicine ?

Can I not wear a white coat in my optical shop, because I fell like it ? I like the white coat, it makes me look thin, or strong.

You're like a kid; you complain a lot, and you mis-interpret what I say. Let me break it down for you, as one would say.

Opticians don't want to be Optometrists

Do you still not understand what I was trying to imply previously ?

 

[qwopty99]

The level of ignorance displayed on this thread by some optometry students is shocking.

I'm not discussing people's stances (vsarge's initial pro-surgical post, for instance, was expressed reasonably), but some posts here have sounded as uneducated and ignorant as an uninformed optician lobby.

But aren't OD students actually educated?

Why on earth don't the posters here seem more intelligent than college-trained opticians??

 

[gochi]

Optometrist=Optometric Physician to the ODs with massive inferiority complexes. The rest of us are just optometrists who aren't all worried about being treated like "real doctors".

It's a fact.

 

[qwopty99]

Opticians don't want to be Optometrists

Maybe not. But many would like to refract, and in general, their political bodies lobby for that right.

Google "ontario association of opticians". The first hit you will get is:

Ontaio Optcians Associaton (sic. wtf??)
The Ontario Opticians Association continues to lobby for increased access to sight testing.
Read the latest letter of support from Hon. ...
www.ontario-opticians.com/ - 24k -

 

[gochi]

The level of ignorance displayed on this thread by some optometry students is shocking.

I'm not discussing people's stances (vsarge's initial pro-surgical post, for instance, was expressed reasonably), but some posts here have sounded as uneducated and ignorant as an uninformed optician lobby.

But aren't OD students actually educated?

Why on earth don't the posters here seem more intelligent than college-trained opticians??

You don't have to be educated to be right.

 

[qwopty99]

ProZackMI

I thought your post was excellent. However, I'd just like to point out somewhere where I don't agree.

You've made repeated claims that pro-surgical ODs are that way out of inferiority. I don't think you can make that conclusion. One could easily argue that those who do NOT want surgery are suffering from inferiority. So which extreme is it? Those who want surgery or those who don't?

I think it's pretty clear the pro-surgical optom students here are not exhibiting "inferiority", but they are certainly showing ego.

Bottom line: I don't think it's correct for you to paint in big strokes, a caricature of optometrists and apply it to all instances of outspoken ODs.

 

[qwopty99]

You don't have to be educated to be right.

So you're saying opticians are right and they should refract?

 

[gochi]

So you're saying opticians are right and they should refract?

If they are willing to go through additional schooling, which I'm pretty sure they are not, and if it will help OD's to perform surgery, then yes.

Opticians will never reach the level of Optometrists, without having gone through Optometry school.

Anyways, why bring in opticians. This debate does not drastically concern them.

 

[qwopty99]

Anyways, why bring in opticians. This debate does not drastically concern them.

It does to the effect that an optometrist-surgery lobby looks hypocritical in the absence of recognition of an analogous optician-refraction lobby.

I can't believe I had to explain this to you.

 

[qwopty99]

If they are willing to go through additional schooling, which I'm pretty sure they are not, and if it will help OD's to perform surgery, then yes.

KHE - I think this evidences a nice counter-example to your many claims in the ophtho forum that "we" (meaning optometrists) don't want surgery. I like your posts, but you've never been very precise with this specific line of argument.


Gochi. Why do you want to do surgery so bad? That's fine - but man, you chose the wrong profession if that's what you want to do as your job. I think you have to agree with this.


Edit: As complicated as it is for an OD to become a surgeon (i.e. through medical school), that route is still easier than what has been proposed here (legislating that opticians become optometrists, and optometrists become surgical optometrists). If you want to have a full career as an eye surgeon within your lifetime, the easiest current route still remains going to medical school.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=514862

^ This is the "anecdotal evidence." Please, I don't make stuff up.

The OP in the above link also called his OD worthless. If one MD who says negative crap means they must all think that way, then that one OD who didn't help this student must mean they're all like that.

You are either an idiot, or misinformed like all egotistic medical doc's. Ask any NOVA student, and they will tell you the term "Optometric Physician" is neatly printed on there scrubs.

I can go get scrubs that say Va Hopeful, Master of the Universe. That doesn't make it so. That aside, listen to the practicing ODs here. In the real world, I know of very few optometrists that actually call themselves Optometric Physicians on anything except insurance forms.

I don't know what is exactly wrong with you. I never said I hate calling myself an Optometrist. Really, why are you asserting these falsified statements ? Are you upset or something ? I mean, if I am, I'll stop the logic. I'm actually pretty amazed at a 37 year old "doctor" talking like this. You finally came out of your shell.

When you start calling yourself something different from "optometrist" that must mean that something about "optometrist" makes you unhappy. If you were content with being an optometrist, why would you want to be called something else? In 2 generations of ODs in my family, they were all content with being optometrists. Why the sudden urge to be called something else?

You're like a kid; you complain a lot, and you mis-interpret what I say. Let me break it down for you, as one would say.

Opticians don't want to be Optometrists

Do you still not understand what I was trying to imply previously ?

Of course they don't. That's why you never hear of opticians trying to refract.

 

[jefguth]

Gochi. Why do you want to do surgery so bad? That's fine - but man, you chose the wrong profession if that's what you want to do as your job. I think you have to agree with this.

Fortunately, Gochi is not an optometry student and given the stats he has posted here in the past he/she never will be.

For the record, it seems that those advocating optometric surgery are either not even in optometry school, or are just finishing up their first year of optometry. Frankly, their ignorance on the subject matter is incredibly apparent to those of us that have just a slightly broader frame of reference.

 

[gochi]

It does to the effect that an optometrist-surgery lobby looks hypocritical in the absence of recognition of an analogous optician-refraction lobby.

I can't believe I had to explain this to you.

You didn't have to. Key word: drastically.

 

[gochi]

KHE - I think this evidences a nice counter-example to your many claims in the ophtho forum that "we" (meaning optometrists) don't want surgery. I like your posts, but you've never been very precise with this specific line of argument.


Gochi. Why do you want to do surgery so bad? That's fine - but man, you chose the wrong profession if that's what you want to do as your job. I think you have to agree with this.


Edit: As complicated as it is for an OD to become a surgeon (i.e. through medical school), that route is still easier than what has been proposed here (legislating that opticians become optometrists, and optometrists become surgical optometrists). If you want to have a full career as an eye surgeon within your lifetime, the easiest current route still remains going to medical school.

Listen, do you seriously think that things will remain the same ? They will not. It's only a matter of time.

Just because I have a license to do surgery, does not mean I have to actually do it routinely.

The way I see it is that if OD's are allowed to do minor surgeries, they will not be discriminated. That's all I'm trying to obtain here, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about the salary, nor is it about the public perception as many %$$@#$@# have said it here.

Sure it may "displace" the things many of you have talked about, but it will fix up corporate optometry, which is what I dont want to do.

 

[Caffeinated]

Hmm...why is that disrespectful ? It's true. What I meant to say was that an ophthalmologist is primarily a surgical OD, and secondarily a physician, who will most likely never use what he/she has learned to earn his/her MD. At least thats the impression I get,

You're impression is based upon an incomplete, superficial, and simplified view of what it means to be an ophthalmologist. See my post above for a more detailed explanation.

Again, the amount of education one has over another individual does not dictate the degree, if any, of respect that individual should expect.

Whether a doctor feels respected or not is irrelevant. It's about patients. It always has been.

 

[qwopty99]

You don't have to be educated to be right.

Let's not get carried away.

I think your position reflects more of a desire to acquire optometric surgery at any cost, than any fundamental truth about it being "right".

if it will help OD's to perform surgery, then yes.

 

[qwopty99]

Fortunately, Gochi is not an optometry student and given the stats he has posted here in the past he/she never will be.

I guess this person will never be a "doctor" either, since he won't have the marks needed for medical school.

It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to fan the flames of one's own ignorance.

 

[jefguth]

Just because I have a license to do surgery, does not mean I have to actually do it routinely.

That is exactly the type of surgeon no one needs.

The way I see it is that if OD's are allowed to do minor surgeries, they will not be discriminated.

And how does this make any logical sense at all? OD's already do just about everything up to surgery, and yet they still face insurance discrimination. How does adding surgery do anything to resolve that issue?

 

[qwopty99]

You didn't have to. Key word: drastically.

It does concern them.

The optician-refraction lobby becomes moot in the absence of medical optometry.

Like you said, the key word is drastically.

 

[qwopty99]

Fortunately, Gochi is not an optometry student and given the stats he has posted here in the past he/she never will be.

linky?

 

[qwopty99]

Listen, do you seriously think that things will remain the same ? They will not. It's only a matter of time.

As for my views, I never suggested anywhere that things will remain the same. You're right, they'll probably change.



But it's the way you express your arguments (opinions). For instance, I already said I thought vsarge's post was reasonable, and it was a pro-surgery argument. Do you think a neutral observer who is not involved with optom/ophtho is going to take your side simply because you say it's right?

The way you present your arguments are devoid of logic, reason, and a fundamental concept of right and wrong. Your arguments are my way or the highway, and invoke circular logic that is grounded in your own partisan beliefs. How exactly does that compel a neutral observer to agree with you?



Your arguments are an embarrassment to all professional optometrists who actually provide the services you would just as hastily disown.

 

[Caffeinated]

Believe it or not Optometrist=Optometric Physician.

Wait a minute...didn't you argue yesterday that ophthalmologists are not physicians because they don't use all of the other stuff they learned in med school and internship? You called ophthalmologists "surgical ODs" and now you claim that optometrist = optometric physician. Do you see the disconnect? I'll give you a minute.......

Hopefully by now you have realized that your logic has painted you into a corner. While you are sitting in that corner waiting for the metaphorical paint to dry, go ahead take a little bit of quiet time. In the meantime, I will fix thing so that they make sense:

Here's the bad logic:
ophthalmologist = surgical OD
optometrist = optometric physician

Here's the logic I want you to meditate on during quiet time:
ophthalmologist = surgical physician
optometrist = optometric OD

Now, don't you feel better already?

 

[qwopty99]

There's really no point in replying to this guy. There's been some pretty sophisticated arguments put forth against him, but based on his replies, it's clear he isn't intelligent enough to understand them.

Further, as someone has already pointed out, he's not even an OD student.



I'll put forth a collective apology on behalf of optometry and my will-be and would-be colleagues, to the world of ophthalmology for threatening you folks with such idealogues who seek to encroach on your turf. Faced with the same imbecility, I'd fear us too.

Let's get back to a reasonable discussion. Despite what has been presented here, it's still a fair topic.

 

[gochi]

Wait a minute...didn't you argue yesterday that ophthalmologists are not physicians because they don't use all of the other stuff they learned in med school and internship? You called ophthalmologists "surgical ODs" and now you claim that optometrist = optometric physician. Do you see the disconnect? I'll give you a minute.......

Hopefully by now you have realized that your logic has painted you into a corner. While you are sitting in that corner waiting for the metaphorical paint to dry, go ahead take a little bit of quiet time. In the meantime, I will fix thing so that they make sense:

Here's the bad logic:
ophthalmologist = surgical OD
optometrist = optometric physician

Here's the logic I want you to meditate on during quiet time:
ophthalmologist = surgical physician
optometrist = optometric OD

Now, don't you feel better already?

Well done. Too bad you didn't understand what I said, like many people here.

Like I said, you people are blowing everything out of proportion. Its halarious really.

I said optometrist=optometric physician because thats what it says on NOVA's scrubs. I simply stated that, period. Nothing more, nothing less and Opthamologists are still surgical OD's. Thats never going to change. If anyone argues the contrary, there just....well.

I'm sorry, but re-reading my posts will not allow you to change my perspective.

I am actually feeling better, quite amused here

 

[gochi]

There's really no point in replying to this guy. There's been some pretty sophisticated arguments put forth against him, but based on his replies, it's clear he isn't intelligent enough to understand them.

Further, as someone has already pointed out, he's not even an OD student.



I'll put forth a collective apology on behalf of optometry and my will-be and would-be colleagues, to the world of ophthalmology for threatening you folks with such idealogues who seek to encroach on your turf. Faced with the same imbecility, I'd fear us too.

Let's get back to a reasonable discussion. Despite what has been presented here, it's still a fair topic.

 

[gochi]

As for my views, I never suggested anywhere that things will remain the same. You're right, they'll probably change.



But it's the way you express your arguments (opinions). For instance, I already said I thought vsarge's post was reasonable, and it was a pro-surgery argument. Do you think a neutral observer who is not involved with optom/ophtho is going to take your side simply because you say it's right?

The way you present your arguments are devoid of logic, reason, and a fundamental concept of right and wrong. Your arguments are my way or the highway, and invoke circular logic that is grounded in your own partisan beliefs. How exactly does that compel a neutral observer to agree with you?



Your arguments are an embarrassment to all professional optometrists who actually provide the services you would just as hastily disown.

Honestly, I could care less about how you feel about my representation of my arguments. Do you think anyone cares about your's ? No. I point out the wrong, as I have done already plenty of times.

This is a debate, and its suppose to voice others opinions, not tell them that they are wrong because someone else has more education than them. Really, you are the one who seems non-intelligent, heck you're the one who went to OD school.

 

[gochi]

Fortunately, Gochi is not an optometry student and given the stats he has posted here in the past he/she never will be.

For the record, it seems that those advocating optometric surgery are either not even in optometry school, or are just finishing up their first year of optometry. Frankly, their ignorance on the subject matter is incredibly apparent to those of us that have just a slightly broader frame of reference.

Stats dont mean anything. BTW, I have actually started to attend classes now, so my GPA isn't what it used to be.

 

[gochi]

I guess this person will never be a "doctor" either, since he won't have the marks needed for medical school.

It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to fan the flames of one's own ignorance.

I'd never become a "doctor." Now, if things do get better, which I think they will, then I'll definetly attend OD school.

Some of you guys are really stupid to make judgment on me attending optometry school due to my what 20 credits or so of mediocre grades.

 

[gochi]

That is exactly the type of surgeon no one needs.


And how does this make any logical sense at all? OD's already do just about everything up to surgery, and yet they still face insurance discrimination. How does adding surgery do anything to resolve that issue?

Do you think when your reading, or do you just read ?

I'll elborate...or ehm....think for you.

OD's are discriminated from some insurance panels. Opthamologists are not. Now, the patients who can't see the OD's due to the discrimination go to a hot shot Opthamologist. Thats BS.

Allowing OD's to get license would open up these panels, and allow more patients. Though, they dont actually have to perform surgery as most visits do not entail surgery. Now the surgical optometrist can see more patients then regular.

I'm not saying OD's should practice full scope surgery, just minor surgery which would clear up some insurance panels and introduce a broad range of patients.

 

[qwopty99]

Really, you are the one who seems non-intelligent, heck you're the one who went to OD school.

I'm the one that is non-intelligent? Based on what? Again, your arguments are just hot air.



I think you're the one who is non-intelligent, based on bad grades in 20 credits, as well as your "halarious" (sic.) lack of spelling ability.

 

[gochi]

You're impression is based upon an incomplete, superficial, and simplified view of what it means to be an ophthalmologist. See my post above for a more detailed explanation.



Whether a doctor feels respected or not is irrelevant. It's about patients. It always has been.

No, I don't think so.

Like I said before, you don't have to be educated to be right.

Yea right, "It's about patients. It always has been."
Doc's could care less. It's human nature.

 

[gochi]

I'm the one that is non-intelligent? Based on what? Again, your arguments are just hot air.



I think you're the one who is non-intelligent, based on bad grades in 20 credits, as well as your "halarious" (sic.) lack of spelling ability.

...again, some of you should read. I'm not gonna answer your second question, you should be able to figure it out, even if you're "non-intelligent". And please, don't tell me that you're more intelligent then me because you have completed OD school.

Well, this is a forum u know so I don't really have to induce proper grammer in my sentances...calm down. It's funny how people poke at the most irrelevant things when trying to prove a doomed point.

 

[qwopty99]

...again, some of you should read. I'm not gonna answer your second question, you should be able to figure it out, even if you're "non-intelligent". And please, don't tell me that you're more intelligent then me because you have completed OD school.

Well, this is a forum u know so I don't really have to induce proper grammer in my sentances...calm down. It's funny how people poke at the most irrelevant things when trying to prove a doomed point.

I never suggested anywhere that I was more intelligent than you (or anyone else) because I completed OD school. Do you just like to imagine arguments or WTF is going on with you?


As for grammar and sentences, if you're going to call someone unintelligent you really should get some of it right. After all, most of us stopped spelling phonetically after passing grade 5.

 

[qwopty99]

I'm sorry Gochi.

It seems you had a troubled childhood. You seem to be trying to get back at the world for all the injustices you have been through.

We're not here to hurt you Gochi. If you try, we can be your friends.

Yes, you are protected by a veneer of the internet, but that is no reason to have to act all tough.

 

[jefguth]

Do you think when your reading, or do you just read ?

I'll elborate...or ehm....think for you.

OD's are discriminated from some insurance panels. Opthamologists are not. Now, the patients who can't see the OD's due to the discrimination go to a hot shot Opthamologist. Thats BS.

Allowing OD's to get license would open up these panels, and allow more patients. Though, they dont actually have to perform surgery as most visits do not entail surgery. Now the surgical optometrist can see more patients then regular.

I'm not saying OD's should practice full scope surgery, just minor surgery which would clear up some insurance panels and introduce a broad range of patients.

So not only do you think OD's should be surgeons, now you think that OD's should actually become licensed physicians with ophthalmology board certification? Please, please fill us in on how you think that's going to happen.