The terms I specified are used. What I question is: In what context is it appropriate to use very complex definitions for these terms, and in what context is it appropriate to use simpler definitions. I'm not questioning our understanding of the terms or that an understanding is necessary. To a large extent I already have a good enough understanding of them to read whatever journal articles I can get my hands on.
"I feel that in medical situations, the patients should feel absolutly comfortable to ask any question they want, but at the same time feel "inferior" to the doctor. Perhaps inferior is to strong of a word, but I know that when I see the doc, I want to feel that the doctor is smarter then I am. Otherwise I wonder why I'm going to him/her. Perhaps that is just me, but I think most people want to think the person about to write them a Rx, or cut into them, is smarter then they are."
That's more of what I am referring to. But I don't think a doctor is stupid if they use simple language. I just think they are a good communicator. If a doctor says I have "accommodative insufficiency," and I am a patient and not a person on your level or mine, I would want to know what that was. And I feel that the doctor should know this, and should give a definition along with the diagnosis.
You're bringing into play the idea of "doctor as authority figure." I've never felt the great desire to be an authority figure, just the desire to help people. If a doctor wants me to think he's smarter, I usually lose respect for him almost immediately, LOL. What does a doctor really have over his patients? More education, and clinical experience. Access to modes of treatment, and to other doctors who may know more than they do. The best doctors, IMHO, are those who are willing to consult with others they respect if a case is difficult.
The doctors I've respected the most, when I've seen them as a patient, are those who obviously have respect for my own intelligence. And, especially, for my own powers of observation about my condition. Some doctors will treat you as a "condition" and not a person, and I don't respect this either. But from an early age, I've had the good fortune to come into contact with medical professionals that I admire and respect very much. So I guess I know what kind of doctor I'd like to become, since I've had great role models.
I've also come into contact with doctors I didn't respect at all. I remember once, when I was about 20, I had to go to a hospital emergency room because I had broken my toe. They gave me a complete examination, and the doctor saw a rash on my back. Now, I was born with an allergic condition called "atopic dermatitis," which means, more or less, that I am sensitive to alot of things, and can become allergic to practically anything. The textbooks call it "the itch that rashes," because people with the condition will itch so much they scratch themselves and actually cause abrasions, or the appearance of a rash. When I mentioned 'atopic skin,' the doctor who was examining me said, "You must mean atrophic. At this point I lost respect for him entirely, and told him that atopic dermatitis was probably on page ONE of his pathology book in the chapter on immunological diseases. (It's classified with psoriasis and asthma, BTW. I do read pathology textbooks.) This guy WAS stupid, and not because he didn't know any terms. His knowledge was not very extensive, he was a lousy diagnostician, and it was obvious. He also told me to use a washcloth on my back, as if I were dirty, and that this had caused my condition...! He was a nitwit, and who knows how he had gotten through med school!(BTW people with atopic skin itch so much, they often take 3 or more showers a day.)
"I do understand your feelings about words like neg. convergence vs. divergence, thats a little wierd"
I can't say how much I've seen this kind of thing lately...! But I think I should be more explicit about the context of my "discussion" on that other forum:
A person (probably with no scientific or medical education) asked why minus lens spectacles are not available in drugstores, as plus lens (reading glasses) are. I responded, trying to make him see that myopia is a complex disorder, and may be (according to current and past research) many disorders, to boot. And that some forms of myopia are progressive, and insidious, and can lead to further complications, like detached retina, and even blindness. So it is not really something you should deal with yourself. On the other hand, most people who go to the drugstore for reading glasses are over 40, and presbyopic, and just don't want to go to the eye doctor. It isn't such a great idea to get generic magnifying glasses, which is what they are, because often there are other factors, such as astigmatism, which are best corrected via a Rx. So, while the non-Rx are not the best option, and could likely cause eyestrain, they will at least not mask or further the progression of a myopia-related disease process.
My response was along those lines, with a more detailed explanation of what myopia is, vs. hyperopia vs presbyopia, but using terms that a lay person could understand. Well, a couple of professionals on the board started complaining that I didn't understand refractive errors, and that I was making inaccurate statements, etc. I have a very large library of "links," and I looked at about 5 eye dictionaries and glossaries, and my statements were really right out their pages...! Since my ODs and many ODs I'm acquainted with have shown respect for my intelligence, I conclude that the forum guys are just arrogant, and like to show off, and disrespect someone who doesn't. I think I got the worst "review" from the guy who used the term "negative vergence," ROTFL. In all my years of learning vision training from my ODs, I never once heard them used that term, hehe...
I actually reconsidered my forum response a bit later, and realized that the non-Rx reading glasses are not such a good idea, for other reasons. The person could have a developing cataract, or age-related macular degeneration, or glaucoma, etc. which would not be found unless they regularly went to their OD. And a person with other health problems, such as diabetes, would be at even greater risk for developing these diseases. But the people on the forum didn't call me to task for THIS omission, which IMHO is a much more serious error than using definitions suitable for a layman.
So I think you see my point. If I had been criticized for THAT, I would have felt, and been properly admonished. I would have been very embarrassed. It's making me red in the face just thinking about it, in fact. But what they did was to get bogged down in semantics.
I posted here yesterday because I'm starting to think I am too much of a "maverick " or "heretic," and that I might get into trouble once I actually get to Optometry School, and even after I graduate. Not in trouble with the grades, or classes, because doing well in school is an art form I mastered long ago. I'm afraid of not getting along with my colleagues. This may sound trivial, but one's career can rest on such things.
Anyway, thanks alot for your comments. I really do need to know how others feel about my questions.
Cheers,
Francine
The people who are going to judge you are the people who AREN'T good with patients. Docs who do nothing but sling big words around in front of patients have superiority complexes and aren't usually the best with patients or communicating. Yes, you CAN use big words (i'm not saying that) you just have to break it down and explain it thoroughly to a patient. Talk TO them, not at them cuz many of them are smarter than you. 