Optometry school attracting the elite!

[drgregory]

the surgeons i work with send post-ops back to me one day. but technically, as i think PD pointed out, that technically doesnt have to be the case. our surgeons see my patients for cataract CONSULTS. the true meaning of a medical consultation is for the recipient doctor who received the consult to completely treat the condition requiring the consult. in the case of surgical consultation for cataracts, that would include their surgical removal, if ordered by the consulting doctor, as well as the healing process involved. naturally, the consultation ends when the condition for the consult is over, and the patient should be sent back to the original doctor. so as an optometrist, i agree that it should entirely be the surgeon's decision. same as any specialty/consultation relationship. i dont think CD is bashing ODs - im sure many other surgical specialties would be more inclined to keep their patients through some post-op care, regardless if the patient was sent from an MD, DDS, DPM etc.
just a side note - with the spectrum of optometric care going on right now, ie some docs who graduated in the Nixon years who were taught next to nothing of primary eye care to the recent grads who are very well trained in medical eye care, wouldnt you be a little reluctant as a surgeon unless you very much knew the capabilities of the doctor that will be comanaging your patients? our surgeons have a comfort level with our ODs, that is why they are fine with us doing post-op. they do not, however, allow external consults to return to the OD or even the referring MD (we get cat consults from a lasik surgeon) until 1 week from surgery. even then, we dont bill any of the post-op fees - its not like we're trying to get that little extra reimbursment - the OD/MD who sent the patient gets the full global fee, as if theyve seen the patient from day one.
i'll say it again - symbiosis. these games of condescendence that ODs and MDs play are ridiculous.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PBEA]

Please do not put words in my mouth or assume an opinion of mine which I have not stated.

I will refrain from doing this

It is obvious you are missing the previously discussed points. These discussions had nothing to do with the capability of optometrists in performing some pre- or post-operative care. There is no further point in you participating in this discussion as you dismiss differing opinions and views as "bias" without due consideration. The "truth" and "facts" you refer to, well, need I say anything about this?

If I'm not mistaken the OP was exactly in regard to OD skill. This thread further degenerated with one foul comment after another regarding OD involvement. You contend this thread is about the surgeon reponsibility, but in the same breath half of the posters follow this up by inserting whatever negative opinion strikes their fancy. Do I need to quote some of the comments written here? One guy says we do it for the money, yeah the greedy OD, only cares about money. Another says we do it to feel important, that's just great. GEE, I don't know where I get off thinking that all these posts are inflammatory. Maybe I'm delusional, and those things weren't said. Maybe I'll go get my vision checked. In any case, I will continue to comment as I see fit. I'm not being disrespectful of anybody's concerns/opinions here. I've pretty much agreed with most of the actual content posted. What I want is to set the record straight. I am doing exactly that.

 

[JR]

This thread is quickly degenerating and getting off on a tangent. Please behave yourselves or heads will roll

 

[PDT4CNV]

This thread is quickly degenerating and getting off on a tangent. Please behave yourselves or heads will roll

My head is already rolling....I think password protected threads would be nice, that might help keep some of these discussions more civil in this OPHTHALMOLOGY forum.

 

[prettygreeneyes]

My head is already rolling....I think password protected threads would be nice, that might help keep some of these discussions more civil in this OPHTHALMOLOGY forum.

PDT4CNV... you do realize that this thread was started by an ophthalmology resident reading through and commenting on info from the OPTOMETRY FORUM... right?

All in the interest of civility... of course.

 

[Caffeinated]

It's this last paragraph that bothers me. I'm not minimizing, or trivializing anything. I think everbody realizes the stakes here. Patient welfare. What I'm I'm trying to do (albeit unsuccessfully) is provide perspective on a VERY obvious truth. That is that, OD's may provide some perioperative care, and if so, do so, in a very specific, accurate, standard, proper, ethical, moral manner, and anything you say opposed to this is probably bias you obtained in your experience, but does not necessarily reflect the facts.

The last paragraph should bother you because I made some pretty serious accusations. If it didn't bother you, then I would be really worried. Yes it is obvious that OD's may provide post-op care--it's already happening. The divide on this issue is that some on the optometry side believe that co-management is an ideal to strive for, whereas surgeons such as PD believe that post-op care provided by anyone other than the operative surgeon is less than ideal.

As far as my perspective is concerned, you can attribute it to unsubstantiated bias if you wish. I like to think that my 4 years of optometry school, 3 years as a practicing optometrist, and 3 years of med school (where I spent the last 3 months on a surgical rotation) has provided me with enough facts and experience to bring an unbiased perspective to this discussion. I know what optometrists learn, and I know their capabilities. But I also understand their limitations better than most people.

Feel free to dismiss my opinion. My feelings won't be hurt. You seem to have subscribed to the philosophy that co-management of surgical patients is an ideal for which we should all be striving, and attempts to convince you that this situation is less than ideal seems to be a futile effort. There will always be a need for optometrists (but probably not as many as the optometry schools are turning out, which the original theme of this thread addressed), so you will always have a job. My advice to you is to take care of your patients to the best of your ability. If you practice optometry in a way that supports and complements your ophthamology colleagues, this will greatly enhance your professional satisfaction. If the limitations placed on you as an optometrist still bother you, then you have two options: 1) take your complaints to your state legislature or 2) take the MCAT (offered every April and August; I recommend the Kaplan review book ).

 

[Hines302]

My head is already rolling....I think password protected threads would be nice, that might help keep some of these discussions more civil in this OPHTHALMOLOGY forum.

Why not?? That's a great idea. I mean we aren't allowed to attend you're educational seminars or meetings, why not keep us out of threads too.

I mean... controlling the flow of information is completely ethical and in the best interest of the public.. right??

 

[prettygreeneyes]

As far as my perspective is concerned, you can attribute it to unsubstantiated bias if you wish. I like to think that my 4 years of optometry school, 3 years as a practicing optometrist, and 3 years of med school (where I spent the last 3 months on a surgical rotation) has provided me with enough facts and experience to bring an unbiased perspective to this discussion. I know what optometrists learn, and I know their capabilities. But I also understand their limitations better than most people.

Caffeinated,

I know this doesn't really pertain to the current topic of discussion, but I've never heard your "story" before if you've told it on SDN. Why did you go to medical school after becoming an optometrist? Did you decide that surgery was something you wanted to do? Didn't like optometry? Did you have desires to become a medical doctor before optometry school but ignored them? Sorry... I've got a little case of cold feet right before I start this fall... and I'd love to hear your feedback.

pge

 

[prettygreeneyes]

Why not?? That's a great idea. I mean we aren't allowed to attend you're educational seminars or meetings, why not keep us out of threads too.

I mean... controlling the flow of information is completely ethical and in the best interest of the public.. right??

Do optometrists let ophthalmologists attend our meetings? I don't think they do...

I just think that PDT4CNV's comment was funny because this thread wouldn't be here if it weren't for an ophthalmologist reading through the optometry forum... but we can't read through their forum?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Do optometrists let ophthalmologists attend out meetings? I don't think they do...

I just think that PDT4CNV's comment was funny because this thread wouldn't be here if it weren't for an ophthalmologist reading through the optometry forum... but we can't read through their forum?

MDs are more than welcome at AOA meetings. However, none ever want to come. THeir meetings are better for what they want.

 

[GuP]

Why not?? That's a great idea. I mean we aren't allowed to attend you're educational seminars or meetings, why not keep us out of threads too.

I mean... controlling the flow of information is completely ethical and in the best interest of the public.. right??

does this make sense at all?

i am guessing to attend an ophthalmology meeting you have to be, you know, an OPHTHALMOLOGIST!! i doubt if an OD went to their meeting, he/she will get much out of it, other than the fact that he was there and proved a point. the same goes for an MD attending an OD meeting. i doubt he/she will get anything out of it.

i doubt anesthesiologists and CRNAs hang out out at the same meetings. i bet the same goes for physical therapists and PMR docs. i mean it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Caffeinated]

Caffeinated,

I know this doesn't really pertain to the current topic of discussion, but I've never heard your "story" before if you've told it on SDN. Why did you go to medical school after becoming an optometrist? Did you decide that surgery was something you wanted to do? Didn't like optometry? Did you have desires to become a medical doctor before optometry school but ignored them? Sorry... I've got a little case of cold feet right before I start this fall... and I'd love to hear your feedback.

pge

I sent you a PM.

 

[Ben Chudner]

does this make sense at all?

i am guessing to attend an ophthalmology meeting you have to be, you know, an OPHTHALMOLOGIST!! i doubt if an OD went to their meeting, he/she will get much out of it, other than the fact that he was there and proved a point. the same goes for an MD attending an OD meeting. i doubt he/she will get anything out of it.

i doubt anesthesiologists and CRNAs hang out out at the same meetings. i bet the same goes for physical therapists and PMR docs. i mean it just doesn't make sense.

I don't want to get into the whole discussion of why OD's were banned from your meetings, but the it's fairly naive to say that OD's would not get anything out of an educational meeting regarding the eye.

 

[PBEA]

The last paragraph should bother you because I made some pretty serious accusations. If it didn't bother you, then I would be really worried. Yes it is obvious that OD's may provide post-op care--it's already happening. The divide on this issue is that some on the optometry side believe that co-management is an ideal to strive for, whereas surgeons such as PD believe that post-op care provided by anyone other than the operative surgeon is less than ideal.


I don't remember any OD ever making the claim that comanagement was an ideal scenario? This is a common misconception in this forum. What I've stated, and what I insist, is that when anybody (other then the surgeon) does any periop work, they are not really doing that work. The surgeon is. Example: Dr.MD surgeon does CE, monkey does f/u. question: who did the f/u? Answer: Dr.MD. Do you get my meaning? The surgeon is well within his abilities to delegate care as he/she sees fit. You're saying this is unethical? So when a tech does a refraction on post CE while Dr.MD is dealing with other pert issue (like playing golf )) this is a problem? Of course not, but if an OD is doing that same refraction, or SLE, or IOP, etc, OH NOOOOOOO, IT CAN'T BE, RUN FOR THE HILLS. Give me a break.

As far as my perspective is concerned, you can attribute it to unsubstantiated bias if you wish. I like to think that my 4 years of optometry school, 3 years as a practicing optometrist, and 3 years of med school (where I spent the last 3 months on a surgical rotation) has provided me with enough facts and experience to bring an unbiased perspective to this discussion. I know what optometrists learn, and I know their capabilities. But I also understand their limitations better than most people.

You're right you have very relevant experience. Makes me wonder what OD school you went to, or what clinics you were in, or what postgrad employment you had. Not to dismiss your experience, but so I can understand. Because I don't understand, how you can sit here, and tell me OD's aren't able to act as I have described in these given scenarios.

Feel free to dismiss my opinion. My feelings won't be hurt. You seem to have subscribed to the philosophy that co-management of surgical patients is an ideal for which we should all be striving, and attempts to convince you that this situation is less than ideal seems to be a futile effort. There will always be a need for optometrists (but probably not as many as the optometry schools are turning out, which the original theme of this thread addressed), so you will always have a job. My advice to you is to take care of your patients to the best of your ability. If you practice optometry in a way that supports and complements your ophthamology colleagues, this will greatly enhance your professional satisfaction. If the limitations placed on you as an optometrist still bother you, then you have two options: 1) take your complaints to your state legislature or 2) take the MCAT (offered every April and August; I recommend the Kaplan review book ).

Again, I'll point out that I never alluded to comanagement as "ideal". I think there is nothing wrong with it. You interpret comanagement as meaning that the OD is providing the perioperative care, I interpret comanagement as the surgeon providing the perioperative care. That is what I have stated repeatedly here, yet none of you seem to get it. Perhaps even your relevant experience, peers and politics may have clouded your willingness to see this point of view. Don't get me wrong, I sense your diplomacy, and appreciate it, but I'm a little passionate on this, so it will have to wait.

 

[JR]

Believe me, we are all passionate here, but could you please stop posting in red; it hurts my eyes .

 

[GuP]

I don't want to get into the whole discussion of why OD's were banned from your meetings, but the it's fairly naive to say that OD's would not get anything out of an educational meeting regarding the eye.

I am not aware that OD's were banned from MD's meetings. I am sure it had to with both parties discontent. I think it is feasible to say that OD's won't get much out of MD's meetings. While I can't say for every single meeting, I bet most of the context of an ophthalmology meeting deals with issues pertinent to, ya guessed it, an ophthalmologist. And vice versa. Although I am sure some issues/topics do overlap between the realm of OD and MD care, most of the meeting dwells on ophthalmology topics. Just b/c the meeting is about the eye doesn't mean that an OD would benefit. If that is the case then why not have opticians come also since they also deal with the eye.

 

[drgregory]

I am not aware that OD's were banned from MD's meetings. I am sure it had to with both parties discontent. I think it is feasible to say that OD's won't get much out of MD's meetings. While I can't say for every single meeting, I bet most of the context of an ophthalmology meeting deals with issues pertinent to, ya guessed it, an ophthalmologist. And vice versa. Although I am sure some issues/topics do overlap between the realm of OD and MD care, most of the meeting dwells on ophthalmology topics. Just b/c the meeting is about the eye doesn't mean that an OD would benefit. If that is the case then why not have opticians come also since they also deal with the eye.

the overlap courses would be worthwhile, but some courses, as you say, would not be worth an ODs time. i really dont care about bi-manual technique in cat sx, or methodology of phaco intensity, etc. you have a point. i do think that it'd probably be nice if the meetings included ODs/OMDs/ and opticians - it would be a good mingling arena. of course, we'd have to agree that us ODs didnt invite our cowboys and you guys didnt invite your cowboys.

 

[Ben Chudner]

I am not aware that OD's were banned from MD's meetings. I am sure it had to with both parties discontent. I think it is feasible to say that OD's won't get much out of MD's meetings. While I can't say for every single meeting, I bet most of the context of an ophthalmology meeting deals with issues pertinent to, ya guessed it, an ophthalmologist. And vice versa. Although I am sure some issues/topics do overlap between the realm of OD and MD care, most of the meeting dwells on ophthalmology topics. Just b/c the meeting is about the eye doesn't mean that an OD would benefit. If that is the case then why not have opticians come also since they also deal with the eye.

You can be sure the ban had nothing to do with optometrist discontent. As drgregory points out, there are courses that are not relevant to an OD such as new surgical techniques, but what makes you think OD's would not benefit from learning about other advancements in eyecare. I think it makes a lot of sense for an OD to hear about the latest treatment for AMD, for example. That way when they correspond with specialists, they will be more knowlegeable. What do you think we learn about at our meetings? Do you think we invite ophthalmologists to lecture at our Academy meeting on the latest contact lenses? Your optician example also shows a lack of understanding as opticians do not deal with the eye. They deal with refractive errors, and are not involved in the treatment or referral for treatment of ocular disease.

 

[GuP]

You can be sure the ban had nothing to do with optometrist discontent. As drgregory points out, there are courses that are not relevant to an OD such as new surgical techniques, but what makes you think OD's would not benefit from learning about other advancements in eyecare. I think it makes a lot of sense for an OD to hear about the latest treatment for AMD, for example. That way when they correspond with specialists, they will be more knowlegeable. What do you think we learn about at our meetings? Do you think we invite ophthalmologists to lecture at our Academy meeting on the latest contact lenses? Your optician example also shows a lack of understanding as opticians do not deal with the eye. They deal with refractive errors, and are not involved in the treatment or referral for treatment of ocular disease.

If you read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I already pointed out what you merely reiterated in your post. As I said before, I am pretty sure the MAJORITY of the content at a specialty, whether it be MD or OD, meeting is specialty related i.e. new surgical techniques for MD meetings and some other area of interest in an OD meeting. It wouldn't make sense for an OD to sit at a meeting x hours long that discusses topics ABCD because for an OD only topic C may be relevant, which is only discussed for 5 mins. This is merely a scenario I am giving here. Of course new advancements in eye care will be knowledgable for all, but is it worth going to a meeting where that is only discussed for 1 hour while the other hour deals with surgical techniques. I guess if you want you can sure go but I sure wouldn't if I was an OD.

Also last time I checked, refractive errors occured in the eye. I may be wrong but can someone please double check this.

 

[Ben Chudner]

If you read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I already pointed out what you merely reiterated in your post. As I said before, I am pretty sure the MAJORITY of the content at a specialty, whether it be MD or OD, meeting is specialty related i.e. new surgical techniques for MD meetings and some other area of interest in an OD meeting. It wouldn't make sense for an OD to sit at a meeting x hours long that discusses topics ABCD because for an OD only topic C may be relevant, which is only discussed for 5 mins. This is merely a scenario I am giving here. Of course new advancements in eye care will be knowledgable for all, but is it worth going to a meeting where that is only discussed for 1 hour while the other hour deals with surgical techniques. I guess if you want you can sure go but I sure wouldn't if I was an OD.

I assumed you had been to one of these meetings we are talking about, but I can see from your lack of understanding that you have not. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. The 2006 American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting in November is one of the meetings that OD's used to attend before the ban. I think we would both agree this is a specialty meeting. In looking at the course outlines I can see at least 15 hours of CME that would interst OD's and I barely scanned the courses. This is not 15 hours spread out in 5 minute intervals within 1 hour classes. It's at least ten 1 to 2 hour courses that an OD would find relevant to their practice. I know if I took the time to review all of the courses I could find a lot more. So while you may think that there are not many relevant topics, I know there are plenty to justify an OD making the trip to Vegas in November.

Also last time I checked, refractive errors occured in the eye. I may be wrong but can someone please double check this.

Very cute, but you miss the point. When opticians start diagnosing and treating eye disease or referring to specialists then I think it will make sense for them to attend these meetings also.

 

[PDT4CNV]

I assumed you had been to one of these meetings we are talking about, but I can see from your lack of understanding that you have not. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. The 2006 American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting in November is one of the meetings that OD's used to attend before the ban. I think we would both agree this is a specialty meeting. In looking at the course outlines I can see at least 15 hours of CME that would interst OD's and I barely scanned the courses. This is not 15 hours spread out in 5 minute intervals within 1 hour classes. It's at least ten 1 to 2 hour courses that an OD would find relevant to their practice. I know if I took the time to review all of the courses I could find a lot more. So while you may think that there are not many relevant topics, I know there are plenty to justify an OD making the trip to Vegas in November.

Very cute, but you miss the point. When opticians start diagnosing and treating eye disease or referring to specialists then I think it will make sense for them to attend these meetings also.

Stop wining, optometry has its own national association and own annual meeting. So go to the optometry meetings. You can learn about all of the research and breakthroughs coming from the optometry community all over the world. Then you will truly see what an important contribution optometry makes to our fund of knowledge in diagnosing and treating ocular disease. So, there really is no need for an OD to go to the ophthalmology meeting.

Oh, and optometry can still go to ARVO.

 

[Ben Chudner]

Stop wining, optometry has its own national association and own annual meeting. So go to the optometry meetings. You can learn about all of the research and breakthroughs coming from the optometry community all over the world. Then you will truly see what an important contribution optometry makes to our fund of knowledge in diagnosing and treating ocular disease. So, there really is no need for an OD to go to the ophthalmology meeting.

Oh, and optometry can still go to ARVO.

Thank you for your input on this matter. I especially appreciate the sarcasm regarding the contribution optometry makes to our fund of knowledge in diagnosing and treating ocular disease. Since I have never attended an ophthalmology meeting, nor have I said I wanted to, I am not sure how I was whining. I was merely pointing out that there are courses that would be relevant to an OD. Your classless attack is unwarranted.

 

[blazenmadison]

Stop wining, optometry has its own national association and own annual meeting. So go to the optometry meetings. You can learn about all of the research and breakthroughs coming from the optometry community all over the world. Then you will truly see what an important contribution optometry makes to our fund of knowledge in diagnosing and treating ocular disease. So, there really is no need for an OD to go to the ophthalmology meeting.

Oh, and optometry can still go to ARVO.

You should tell that to all the ODs in your area. Smart OMDs work with ODs not against them. Otherwise you will be left in the dust with no patients but you will still have your ego.

 

[GuP]

I assumed you had been to one of these meetings we are talking about, but I can see from your lack of understanding that you have not. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. The 2006 American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting in November is one of the meetings that OD's used to attend before the ban. I think we would both agree this is a specialty meeting. In looking at the course outlines I can see at least 15 hours of CME that would interst OD's and I barely scanned the courses. This is not 15 hours spread out in 5 minute intervals within 1 hour classes. It's at least ten 1 to 2 hour courses that an OD would find relevant to their practice. I know if I took the time to review all of the courses I could find a lot more. So while you may think that there are not many relevant topics, I know there are plenty to justify an OD making the trip to Vegas in November.

Very cute, but you miss the point. When opticians start diagnosing and treating eye disease or referring to specialists then I think it will make sense for them to attend these meetings also.

I agree I do not yet know much about the meetings. I am a medical student. I did happen to attend an OD meeting and it was on genetics and the eye. They had a guest DO lecturer that specialized in medical genetics. The meeting was interesting and it focused on a few genetic diseases' eye manifestations, esp. Fabrys.

Anyways, I do agree in a sense that much can be learned by going to meetings for both parties. But, as PD mentioned, I am sure you will learn the relevant material, including overlapping topics, new treatments, etc, in OD meetings or MD meetings. As always, each will be geared more towards the specialty it was intended for. So why not just go to yours?

I just want to say I have the utmost respect for OD's. I have gotten to know one over the past few months and she is a helluva teacher. I think she definitely knows her stuff very well. She works in a private clinic owned by an ophthalmologist. They work together and it seems that both parties are very content with what the roles of the other. The practice thrives partly because of the OD and partly because of the MD. I do not know specifically what the OD roles are but I think I saw her doing pre and post-ops. I am not 100% sure.

My point is that all this bickering needs to be dealt with. If the the MD chooses to see patients post-op, then so be it. It his judgement call and either way is correct. Technically, the MD should at least see the patient postop once. But hey if he/she doesn't wana, it's his call. If he wants to, then so be it. It is up to the MD to make that judgement and I dont think ODs should be offended if he chooses to see his patients postop. It is not a knock to the OD profession; it is just one man's judgement call.

 

[Ben Chudner]

My point is that all this bickering needs to be dealt with. If the the MD chooses to see patients post-op, then so be it. It his judgement call and either way is correct. Technically, the MD should at least see the patient postop once. But hey if he/she doesn't wana, it's his call. If he wants to, then so be it. It is up to the MD to make that judgement and I dont think ODs should be offended if he chooses to see his patients postop. It is not a knock to the OD profession; it is just one man's judgement call.

I agree. It is time that OD's and MD's find a way to end all of this and work together as most people on this forum suggest. I would only add to the above post that the MD should not be offended when the OD finds another skilled cataract surgeon to refer to that will release post-op patients at 1 week. That is also a judgement call that is up to the OD as the referring doctor.

 

[ProZackMI]

It's interesting that as a psychiatrist, I see some of the same issues in the psychiatrist/psychologist debate -- especially with many PsyD/PhD psychologists getting RxPs in some states (e.g., LA, NM, HI). I wonder if all of this "turf" bickering has somehow had a deleterious effect on the patients we serve?

For me, the biggest problem I have with non-physicians trying to enhance their scope of practice is training. However, if a non-physician is well-trained and poses no significant risk to his/her patients, then what is the harm in letting them perform some tasks formerly reserved for MDs?

Now, I'm not talking surgery here. I don't think an OD should ever be allowed to perform any surgical procedure whatsover. If an OD wants to practice medicine and surgery, then go to medical school, do a general surg and ophth residency, and then do what you want to do. However, an OD's training is fairly comprehensive and I don't see a problem with them doing a wide range of primary care duties if it serves their patients safely.

I mean, if NPs and PAs, who have far less training in ocular pathology and tx, can safely handle minor tx of eye conditions, why wouldn't an OD be able to? I think it's a good thing. I just think that there are many ODs out there who go beyond their training and pretend to be physicians. You know, that optometric physician garbage. These are the types who don white coats, insist on using their "doctoral" title all over the place (like in non work-related settings), and think they possess the knowledge to treat a myriad of medical maladies outside the scope of their training. That can be quite scary! You see that in chiropractic and sometimes with psychologists. Medical school has its faults, for sure, but one thing it does is teach doctors how to view problems systemically. I'm not sure that an OD has the medical knowledge regarding systemic disease like diabetes, HTN, CAD, MS, etc, to be able to render effective tx for some ocular conditions. An ophthalmologist is a physician first and then an eye specialist; he knows how various drugs interact and how systemic disease impacts ocular health. An OD is not trained as a physician and lacks this knowledge.

An optometrist should practice to the fullest extent of his training, but should not exceed that scope of practice by delving into the practice of medicine. In some professions, this can be a fine line (e.g., podiatric surgery, OMFS), but it shouldn't be that way for optometry given the nature of the profession.

Remember one thing, if you're not happy with your place in life, and feel that you're unnecessarily constrained by professional limitations, then you can always make an informed decision to leave the profession and do something else. I trained as a physician, became dissatisfied, and then went into law, where I have found my niche. It happens and there is nothing to feel guilty about! If you're an OD and want to do more, consider your options.

Oh, and about the topic...there are many people out there who will say things like an OD (DDS, DPM, PHD, PharmD, etc.) isn't a "real doctor" and that non-physicians are somehow inferior because they couldn't get into medical school. That is pure, unmitigated bullsh|t. Don't ever listen to that. It takes a lot to get into professional school. If you're an OD, or an OD student, or thinking about optometry school, you are obviously not some ***** taking "classes" at a local community college. To get into optometry school takes a lot of work and effort. It may not be the same work and effort needed to get into a top medical school, but so what...who cares about that?

If you're considering optometry, or are in optometry, you should be proud of your accomplishment and be happy with who you are professionally. If, however, you're going into optometry because you couldn't get into medical school, then you're never going to be happy and will always be thinking of what you could have done had you gone to medical school.

Remember this also, it's easier to get into some DO schools than it is to get into some dental schools, vet schools, and possibly even optometry schools. If MD/DO is what you really want, then go for it. If optom is what you really want, don't listen to those idiots who say you're somehow inferior to "real doctors".

Being an MD or DO isn't the end-all-be-all of existence. I can attest to that. Don't be fooled by that common misconception. In many ways, the optometrists have a better lifestyle because they can enter their profession after school, or a year after school if they do a residency, and start making decent money without the excessive financial burdens one incurs in medical school. You guys also can start life earlier. I was very unhappy during my IM/PSY residency. VERY UNHAPPY. Don't regret or lament your decision and enjoy your profession. If you don't, then consider other options.

 

[drgregory]

It's interesting that as a psychiatrist, I see some of the same issues in the psychiatrist/psychologist debate -- especially with many PsyD/PhD psychologists getting RxPs in some states (e.g., LA, NM, HI). I wonder if all of this "turf" bickering has somehow had a deleterious effect on the patients we serve?

For me, the biggest problem I have with non-physicians trying to enhance their scope of practice is training. However, if a non-physician is well-trained and poses no significant risk to his/her patients, then what is the harm in letting them perform some tasks formerly reserved for MDs?

Now, I'm not talking surgery here. I don't think an OD should ever be allowed to perform any surgical procedure whatsover. If an OD wants to practice medicine and surgery, then go to medical school, do a general surg and ophth residency, and then do what you want to do. However, an OD's training is fairly comprehensive and I don't see a problem with them doing a wide range of primary care duties if it serves their patients safely.

I mean, if NPs and PAs, who have far less training in ocular pathology and tx, can safely handle minor tx of eye conditions, why wouldn't an OD be able to? I think it's a good thing. I just think that there are many ODs out there who go beyond their training and pretend to be physicians. You know, that optometric physician garbage. These are the types who don white coats, insist on using their "doctoral" title all over the place (like in non work-related settings), and think they possess the knowledge to treat a myriad of medical maladies outside the scope of their training. That can be quite scary! You see that in chiropractic and sometimes with psychologists. Medical school has its faults, for sure, but one thing it does is teach doctors how to view problems systemically. I'm not sure that an OD has the medical knowledge regarding systemic disease like diabetes, HTN, CAD, MS, etc, to be able to render effective tx for some ocular conditions. An ophthalmologist is a physician first and then an eye specialist; he knows how various drugs interact and how systemic disease impact ocular health. An OD is not trained as a physician and lacks this knowledge.

An optometrist should practice to the fullest extent of his training, but should not exceed that scope of practice by delving into the practice of medicine. In some professions, this can be a fine line (e.g., podiatric surgery, OMFS), but it shouldn't be that way for optometry given the nature of the profession.

Remember one thing, if you're not happy with your place in life, and feel that you're unnecessarily contrained by professional limitations, then you can always make an informed decision to leave the profession and do something else. I trained as a physician, became dissatisfied, and then went into law, where I have found my niche. It happens and there is nothing to feel guilty about! If you're an OD and want to do more, consider your options.

Oh, and about the topic...there are many people out there who will say things like an OD (DDS, DPM, PHD, PharmD, etc.) isn't a "real doctor" and that non-physicians are somehow inferior because they couldn't get into medical school. That is pure, unmitigated bullsh|t. Don't ever listen to that. It takes a lot to get into professional school. If you're an OD, or an OD student, or thinking about optometry school, you are obviously not some ***** taking "classes" at a local community college. To get into optometry school takes a lot of work and effort. It may not be the same work and effort needed to get into a top medical school, but so what...who cares about that?

If you're considering optometry, or are in optometry, you should be proud of your accomplishment and be happy with who you are professionally. If, however, you're going into optometry because you couldn't get into medical school, then you're never going to be happy and will always be thinking of what you could have done had you gone to medical school.

Remember this also, it's easier to get into some DO schools than it is to get into some dental schools, vet schools, and possibly even optometry schools. If MD/DO is what you really want, then go for it. If optom is what you really want, don't listen to those idiots who say you're somehow inferior to "real doctors".

Being an MD or DO isn't the end-all-be-all of existence. I can attest to that. Don't be fooled by that common misconception. In many ways, the optometrists have a better lifestyle because they can enter their profession after school, or a year after school if they do a residency, and start making decent money without the excessive financial burdens one incurs in medical school. You guys also can start life earlier. I was very unhappy during my IM/PSY residency. VERY UNHAPPY. Don't regret or lament your decision and enjoy your profession. If you don't, then consider other options.

this post has many good points from an unbiased point of view.

 

[PDT4CNV]

this post has many good points from an unbiased point of view.

I would agree. Now, let me show you a biased viewpoint. This is a direct quote from PAUL C. AJAMIAN, O.D. He is adjunct faculty at 12 schools of optometry. This was published this year in a journal called Optometric Management. The article title is Comanaging Cataract Patients: The New Role of the Primary Care Optometrist.

Here is the quote: "Our level of participation depends on many factors, with the foremost consideration being the wishes and care of the patient. Another important factor is the confidence of the surgeon in his/her technical abilities. Some surgeons may want to follow patients for a longer period of time. When we note this trend, we should probably steer our patients in a different direction."

This suggests that surgeons who wish to see their own patients post-operatively must be poor surgeons with no confidence. I hope people don't actually believe that or read this journal much.

 

[drgregory]

I would agree. Now, let me show you a biased viewpoint. This is a direct quote from PAUL C. AJAMIAN, O.D. He is adjunct faculty at 12 schools of optometry. This was published this year in a journal called Optometric Management. The article title is Comanaging Cataract Patients: The New Role of the Primary Care Optometrist.

Here is the quote: "Our level of participation depends on many factors, with the foremost consideration being the wishes and care of the patient. Another important factor is the confidence of the surgeon in his/her technical abilities. Some surgeons may want to follow patients for a longer period of time. When we note this trend, we should probably steer our patients in a different direction."

This suggests that surgeons who wish to see their own patients post-operatively must be poor surgeons with no confidence. I hope people don't actually believe that or read this journal much.

realize that im not argueing with you. read my above posts - especially the one defining "consultation". i have now pegged you as a cowboy - your irrational responses indicate this. your war is not with me. im a middle of the road optometrist. you are looking for a cowboy OD. two doors down. thanks.

 

[PDT4CNV]

realize that im not argueing with you. read my above posts - especially the one defining "consultation". i have now pegged you as a cowboy - your irrational responses indicate this. your war is not with me. im a middle of the road optometrist. you are looking for a cowboy OD. two doors down. thanks.

This discussion has nothing to do with you personally. It has to do with issues of co-management and the policies of your profession.

Cowboys? Irrational responses? war?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but aside from the personal attack, do you have any opinions on the above quote from a prominent member of your profession?

 

[qwopty99]

It's interesting that as a psychiatrist, I see some of the same issues in the psychiatrist/psychologist debate -- especially with many PsyD/PhD psychologists getting RxPs in some states (e.g., LA, NM, HI). I wonder if all of this "turf" bickering has somehow had a deleterious effect on the patients we serve?

good post. you appear to have the ability step back and see the "bigger picture". further, you seem to understand some of the fundamental psychologies underlying those who practice medicine, and those who practice para-medical professions.

further - i agree with the commentary about "optometric physician". what the heck is that? i mean, i'd only call myself an "OP" if, after getting my O.D., i went on and did an MD and residency in family medicine - i mean, THAT would really be an "Optometric physician". while i think it's acceptable for an optometrist to call themselves an "eye doctor" since the public seems to use the term widely, i don't believe ODs have the right to the term "physician" - as to me, the term is defined by the MD degree. an MD is a physician - that's exactly what he is. period.

I would agree. Now, let me show you a biased viewpoint. This is a direct quote from PAUL C. AJAMIAN, O.D. He is adjunct faculty at 12 schools of optometry. This was published this year in a journal called Optometric Management. The article title is Comanaging Cataract Patients: The New Role of the Primary Care Optometrist.

Here is the quote: "Our level of participation depends on many factors, with the foremost consideration being the wishes and care of the patient. Another important factor is the confidence of the surgeon in his/her technical abilities. Some surgeons may want to follow patients for a longer period of time. When we note this trend, we should probably steer our patients in a different direction."

ok I'll be the first. the guy is an idiot. well, perhaps not an idiot, but he certainly doesn't make any effort to delinate between common practice characteristics, and partisan commentary. it's really quite pathetic that someone should try to deliver a political message through a guise of education.

whether a surgeon gives the patient back one-day post-op, or decides to see the patient himself, does not determine their ability as a surgeon. why hasn't PAUL C. AJAMIAN, O.D. failed to mention the (equivalent?) possibility that if the surgeon doesn't send early post-ops back, it is not because he doubts his own ability, but that he doubts the ability of the O.D.?

you're going to get these cowboy ODs (and MDs) wherever u go. however, go back to my first post on the first page of this thread - what can really be done about any of this?

edit: just to let u know, Optometric Management really isn't a "journal" - it's more like a magazine - one of those typical optometry magazines that don't talk about anything other than how to make more money.

 

[qwopty99]

oh - i'd like to add my $0.02 about the early commentary about O.D.s attending MD conferences.

while i understand the "gist" of one of the posts suggesting that since ODs have their own conferences and therefore have no need to go to MD conferences, i do not agree that ODs would not benefit from attending MD conferences - to suggest this grossly underestimates the basic knowledge of "up-to-date" ODs. further - ODs are a group of people who are "interested" in research and development in the area of the eyes and vision. why exactly would they NOT be interested in topics covered in an ophthalmology conference?

i'd further like to suggest that opticians, however, would reap almost no benefit from attending OD conferences - i've known recent optician graduates and their level of knowledge regarding virtually anything eye related, clincally or otherwise (disease, optics, contact lens evaluations, etc.) is very lacking. i notice they are good at teaching insertion/removal of lenses, as well as the finer points of selling glasses and coatings etc. - but i would not classify opticianry as an "academic" profession by any stretch.

 

[jefguth]

further - i agree with the commentary about "optometric physician". what the heck is that? i mean, i'd only call myself an "OP" if, after getting my O.D., i went on and did an MD and residency in family medicine - i mean, THAT would really be an "Optometric physician". while i think it's acceptable for an optometrist to call themselves an "eye doctor" since the public seems to use the term widely, i don't believe ODs have the right to the term "physician" - as to me, the term is defined by the MD degree. an MD is a physician - that's exactly what he is. period.[/QUOTE

In some states optometry took on the protected title "optometric physician," in addition to the customary "Dr." and "optometrist" titles as a way to access insurance panels that were restricted to "physicians." Add the work "physician" to your title and all of a sudden you can start billing those medical plans....

At the same time, I find it just silly that an OD would even want to use this title. The general public already doesn't know the difference between optometrist, ophthalmologists, and opticians - why add a fourth and even more confusing title. I suspect the vast majority of people don't even know what a physician is, or at least the word is not at all in their common vocabulary. I just can't imagine why we would want to make actual use of "optometric physician" in the day to day, sure use it when dealing with that insurance company, but why create more confusion?

 

[Ben Chudner]

This discussion has nothing to do with you personally. It has to do with issues of co-management and the policies of your profession.

Cowboys? Irrational responses? war?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but aside from the personal attack, do you have any opinions on the above quote from a prominent member of your profession?

Paul Ajamian does not speak for our profession. He does have an advice column in a throw away magazine. He is also an adjunct faculty member of 12 schools, but that is only because the Omni that he works at has 4th year extern positions for 12 schools. In order for the schools to send a student to a location, that location has to have a doctor that is a contact person and is ultimately responsible for the student's education. The title means relatively nothing.

 

[qwopty99]

In some states optometry took on the protected title "optometric physician," in addition to the customary "Dr." and "optometrist" titles as a way to access insurance panels that were restricted to "physicians." Add the work "physician" to your title and all of a sudden you can start billing those medical plans....

ahh... so that explains things. i was wondering why the term even existed - i just thought it was that some ODs decided to try to get greater recognition by the public that they were "real" doctors - by claiming the physician title. if it actually had material benefits (like billing medical plans as you say), then it starts to make a bit more sense (and not just ego-aggrandizement).

but you're right - it's confusing. why don't optometrists just call themselves that: optometrists? i'm an optometrist. i'm not a physician. but that said, i absolutely find no "embarassment" in calling myself an optometrist - and equally, no embarassment in saying that i'm not a physician (because i'm not). i think it's best just to be precise. but again - the term led to material differences - so i can see why the term has arisen and is now protected (i'm in canada where the term isn't used, hence the ignorance).

 

[PDT4CNV]

Paul Ajamian does not speak for our profession. He does have an advice column in a throw away magazine. He is also an adjunct faculty member of 12 schools, but that is only because the Omni that he works at has 4th year extern positions for 12 schools. In order for the schools to send a student to a location, that location has to have a doctor that is a contact person and is ultimately responsible for the student's education. The title means relatively nothing.

In my opinion, even an article in a throw-away journal carries some influence. His title does mean something because he is involved in the training of young impressionable optometry students who will absorb his ideas. Those of you who comment in here frequently and who have been out in practice seem to have a reasonable perspective on some of these issues. But, I suspect that if this same discussion regarding co-management took place in the optometry forum, that we would have 20 young optometry students defending to the death views such as Paul Ajamian, arguing in favor of the silly term optometric physician, in favor of expanded scope of practice, and in favor of total co-management. This is just a suspician, but my feeling is that the rhetoric in optometry schools is very liberal and somewhat antagonistic toward ophthalmology. The position of the AOA seems to be.

Well, I have nothing additional to add about co-management. But in reference to the issue of conferences. For years optometry was welcome at the annual ophthalmology academy meeting. The real issue is not whether the ophthalmology academy meeting would be beneficial or interesting for optometrists. It usually is a very excellent meeting with good classes, discussions, and lectures etc. The issue is that optometrists are now restriced from going. We all know why the ophthalmology academy restricted optometry attendance from the annual meeting. Can you blame them?

 

[KHE]

In my opinion, even an article in a throw-away journal carries some influence. His title does mean something because he is involved in the training of young impressionable optometry students who will absorb his ideas. Those of you who comment in here frequently and who have been out in practice seem to have a reasonable perspective on some of these issues. But, I suspect that if this same discussion regarding co-management took place in the optometry forum, that we would have 20 young optometry students defending to the death views such as Paul Ajamian, arguing in favor of the silly term optometric physician, in favor of expanded scope of practice, and in favor of total co-management. This is just a suspician, but my feeling is that the rhetoric in optometry schools is very liberal and somewhat antagonistic toward ophthalmology. The position of the AOA seems to be.

In may be true that the rhetoric in colleges of optometry by academic optometrists is "very liberal" but at that the same time, you can't deny that the rhetoric in medical schools is very strong against any non-physician provider.

I can understand why, but that doesn't make it right. A frequent poster on these forums once confided in a PM to me that his only experience with ophthalmology in medical school was a short rotation in which ever attending present took every chance they had to run down optometrists and optometric education.

The reality of it is that these types of discussions are probably best left to practitioners who are actually in the real world and not to ophthalmic residents, optometry students and academic faculty members who often times don't have an adequate frame of reference. On SDN, I don't think we have too many of those unfortunately.

 

[wtwei02]

In may be true that the rhetoric in colleges of optometry by academic optometrists is "very liberal" but at that the same time, you can't deny that the rhetoric in medical schools is very strong against any non-physician provider.

I can understand why, but that doesn't make it right. A frequent poster on these forums once confided in a PM to me that his only experience with ophthalmology in medical school was a short rotation in which ever attending present took every chance they had to run down optometrists and optometric education.

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. You can't base the rhetoric of medical schools on one example from a PM. Anecdotes do not make it a fact. At my med school, and the program where I'm starting residency, they employ OD's, and there is no power struggle. Everyone works together very well, and knows their role. The OD's even give lectures to the residents about contact lens fitting and optics. During an away rotation at a big name ophtho program, I saw nothing but positive interactions between the two groups, with Ophtho attendings teaching both med students, residents and rotating OD students. But then again, none of these people were pushing for surgery or asking to comanage patients (since in academic programs, post-ops were always followed by surgeons), so that may have played a role.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. You can't base the rhetoric of medical schools on one example from a PM. Anecdotes do not make it a fact. At my med school, and the program where I'm starting residency, they employ OD's, and there is no power struggle. Everyone works together very well, and knows their role. The OD's even give lectures to the residents about contact lens fitting and optics. During an away rotation at a big name ophtho program, I saw nothing but positive interactions between the two groups, with Ophtho attendings teaching both med students, residents and rotating OD students. But then again, none of these people were pushing for surgery or asking to comanage patients (since in academic programs, post-ops were always followed by surgeons), so that may have played a role.

Oddly enough, at my school the ophtho dept. is on great terms with local ODs. Its the family medicine department that behaves more like KHE described. One of the attendings is famous for telling all the students that rotate with him to send eye problems to MDs only, that ODs don't even really count as doctors.

 

[KHE]

You're right. I did not mean to imply that every program does this because there are some programs out there that are very "optometry friendly" (if that's even a term) and may even have optometrists on faculty. Unfortunately, there are also very many where optometry is "persona non grata"

I still think that this a discussion that is probably best left to doctors who are practicing outside of academia because students and academic faculty members usually don't have an adequate frame of reference.

You can't really go by what either groups' academies or lobbying groups say because they are nothing but mouthpieces. Expecting the AAO to say something positive about optometry is sort of like expecting Democrats to say something positive about Republicans or vice versa. Listening to the statements of partisan organizations doesn't provide much help.

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. You can't base the rhetoric of medical schools on one example from a PM. Anecdotes do not make it a fact. At my med school, and the program where I'm starting residency, they employ OD's, and there is no power struggle. Everyone works together very well, and knows their role. The OD's even give lectures to the residents about contact lens fitting and optics. During an away rotation at a big name ophtho program, I saw nothing but positive interactions between the two groups, with Ophtho attendings teaching both med students, residents and rotating OD students. But then again, none of these people were pushing for surgery or asking to comanage patients (since in academic programs, post-ops were always followed by surgeons), so that may have played a role.

 

[abu barney]

I read the first post and knew that this would degenerate into one of those threads. It's unclear to me how MDs expect to maintain respectful relationships with their OD colleagues when they are constantly shoving high GPA numbers and sob stories about medical school down everyone else's throat.

 

[GuP]

I read the first post and knew that this would degenerate into one of those threads. It's unclear to me how MDs expect to maintain respectful relationships with their OD colleagues when they are constantly shoving high GPA numbers and sob stories about medical school down everyone else's throat.

have you actually read the whole thread or just assumed your position about how all MDs are smart students with high GPAs and interesting stories to share with the public?

are you sure your alias isn't Paul Ajamian?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I read the first post and knew that this would degenerate into one of those threads. It's unclear to me how MDs expect to maintain respectful relationships with their OD colleagues when they are constantly shoving high GPA numbers and sob stories about medical school down everyone else's throat.

I actually think this thread has been very civil and polite. There will always be disagreements, but everyone has presented their ideas well and defended them logically and without malice. If all OD/MD discussions go this smoothly, I'd have great faith for future relations.

 

[PBEA]

Believe me, we are all passionate here, but could you please stop posting in red; it hurts my eyes .

But red is the color of love sweetykins.

But seriously, I'm thinking of marketing an online version of a PAM test for people with less then clear media, what do you think?

Or, a passive/aggressive treatment for CME, let the healing begin!

I just want the words to sink in, literally burn into your retina's leaving a deliberate afterimage that just slowly goes away, like the ashes of an opponent who I have just recently torched. Flame on.

Mounthers

 

[Ben Chudner]

We all know why the ophthalmology academy restricted optometry attendance from the annual meeting. Can you blame them?

We all know why ophthalmologists say they they restricted optometry attendance from the annual meeting, however there has never been one shread of proof to back up your story. I have asked on more than one occasion for someone to provide me with transcripts from a legislative hearing where an optometrist said that OD's attend your meetings and therefore should be allowed to expand our scope. I have friends on the several state boards and on the AOA Board and they contend that this never happened in any state. Rather than have me prove a negative, please provide evdence that this ever happened and was not just retaliation for your political loss in Oklahoma. If it happened then I agree with the political decision to restrict OD's, otherwise it looks like sour grapes.

 

[ProZackMI]

In some states optometry took on the protected title "optometric physician," in addition to the customary "Dr." and "optometrist" titles as a way to access insurance panels that were restricted to "physicians." Add the work "physician" to your title and all of a sudden you can start billing those medical plans....

At the same time, I find it just silly that an OD would even want to use this title. The general public already doesn't know the difference between optometrist, ophthalmologists, and opticians - why add a fourth and even more confusing title. I suspect the vast majority of people don't even know what a physician is, or at least the word is not at all in their common vocabulary. I just can't imagine why we would want to make actual use of "optometric physician" in the day to day, sure use it when dealing with that insurance company, but why create more confusion?

In the US, the term "physician" is protected by statute in MOST states. In Michigan, physician is reserved ONLY for allopaths (MDs), osteopaths (DOs), podiatrists (DPMs), and oral-max surgeons (DDSs, MDs, or those who have both). Now, the term surgeon, believe it or not, is used more liberally in most jurisdictions. In Michigan, as an example, a dentist can be an oral surgeon, a podiatrist, who has not even trained for surgery, can call himself a "physician & surgeon" of the foot, and even veterinarians, can call themselves surgeons. The term "physician" is more regulated and usually reserved for those aforementioned professions. In Michigan, if an OD calls himself a physician, even an optometric physician, he is going to be charged with the unauthorized practice of medicine and could lose his optometry license, end up in jail, or wind up paying very hefty fees. You should always consult your practice statutes to see if certain terms are forbidden or protected or otherwise reserved.

However, I have seen the term physician used to define any autonomous doctorally-prepared health care professional who engages in the tx, dx, assessment, and medical care of a human being. So, in states like Washington and Oregon, and a few others, folks like chiropractors, psychologists, dentists, optometrists, and naturopaths are considered physicians. The caveat, however, is that such professionals much always qualify their title (e.g., chiropractic physician, optometric physician, psychological physician, naturopathic physician).

The term "doctor" is a title granted based on one's degree, NOT one's profession. Thus, an optometrist is a doctor by virtue of his OD degree, not by his profession. The same is true of anyone with a doctorate, whether professional (MD, DO, DDS, DVM, PharmD, JD, OD, DPT, DPM, AuD, PsyD) or academic (PhD, EdD, ScD, DA, DBA, DSW, ThD, etc.). So, in that sense, even a PT with a DPT degree, a pharmacist with a PharmD, or a lawyer with a JD (although they usually don't use the title outside academe) is just as much a "doctor" as any MD or PhD. It's mostly in the US that we seem to equate the word doctor with an entire profession, which is actually a flawed concept given that in most parts of the world, physicians only have a bachelor's degree (i.e., MBBS).

Optometrist is not a title, but rather a profession. One of the good things (or maybe it's a bad thing???) law school has done is to instill in me the notion that most people are grossly imprecise with words.

Now, having said all that crap, no optometrist should be going around calling himself a physician. Why? Simply because it's deceptive and misrepresentation. It is NOT deceptive for anyone with a doctorate to say "I'm a doctor", although, arguably, since most folks connect the term "doctor" with physician, it can be somewhat misleading among those who are not very well educated insofar as the average, prudent educated person knows or should know that the term "doctor" brings to mind MD/DO in the minds of most people, and therefore, if a dentist or PhD or OD or vet goes around saying "I'm a doctor", while it would not be a lie, or a true deception, he/she should know better because it's going to confuse most people into thinking they are medical doctors, which can be very confusing and possible dangerous.

No one except an MD or DO should call themselves physician; it's simply too deceptive and just plain wrong. If you're a podiatrist, say so. If you're an optometrist, say so. If you're an OD, you really should be more precise and say "I'm an optometrist" rather than "I'm an eye doctor". Why? I just think it's being more specific and explaining what you are/do. "Eye doctor" may or may not confuse folks. It could make people think you're an eye surgeon or ophthalmologist. Saying optometrist bypasses possible confusion. If the patient or whoever is still confused by optometrist, then eye doctor is appropriate.

I'm a psychiatrist, but I usually avoid saying "I'm a doctor", because then, invariably, I have to qualify that with what kind of doctor, so it's just easier to be upfront and admit I'm a head shrinker.

 

[ProZackMI]

We all know why ophthalmologists say they they restricted optometry attendance from the annual meeting, however there has never been one shread of proof to back up your story. I have asked on more than one occasion for someone to provide me with transcripts from a legislative hearing where an optometrist said that OD's attend your meetings and therefore should be allowed to expand our scope. I have friends on the several state boards and on the AOA Board and they contend that this never happened in any state. Rather than have me prove a negative, please provide evdence that this ever happened and was not just retaliation for your political loss in Oklahoma. If it happened then I agree with the political decision to restrict OD's, otherwise it looks like sour grapes.

If it's really true that ODs cannot attend medical conferences, then I would say that's invidious discrimination. At state and national sponsored psychiatric conferences (MPS, ApA, AMA, etc.), there are MD/DO psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurse practitioners, and even PAs in attendence. We all benefit from shared knowledge. Likewise, I've been to APA (note: ApA = Amer Psychiatric Ass'n and APA = American Psychological Ass'n) conferences and even social work conferences. I've also gone to conferences geared for pharmacists, school psychologists, and neurologists. Shared knowledge benefits everyone -- especially the patients.

If this is true that ODs are precluded from attending ophth conferences, maybe the AOA should do some lobbying or hire some high-powered attorneys and take this to court. Just a thought.

 

[qwopty99]

No one except an MD or DO should call themselves physician; it's simply too deceptive and just plain wrong. If you're a podiatrist, say so. If you're an optometrist, say so. If you're an OD, you really should be more precise and say "I'm an optometrist" rather than "I'm an eye doctor". Why? I just think it's being more specific and explaining what you are/do. "Eye doctor" may or may not confuse folks. It could make people think you're an eye surgeon or ophthalmologist. Saying optometrist bypasses possible confusion. If the patient or whoever is still confused by optometrist, then eye doctor is appropriate.

i basically agree with everything u wrote - and in fact some of what u wrote overlapped with my post above. i however, have to disagree with your general premise that the term "eye doctor" is not really that appropriate for optometrists, since i think the term is applied by the public towards the profession.

while i agree that optometrist is the better word - i've heard people say, "oh - i forgot - i need to see the eye doctor tomorrow", when they were referring to optometrists. i call myself an optometrist, and i think that's the best, most precise term. however, a sizeable portion of the public (for better or for worse) equate optometrist with the term, "eye doctor", and hence - under those circumstances, i don't think it's inappropriate for someone to say:
I'm an optometrist, you know, an "eye doctor".

 

[ProZackMI]

i basically agree with everything u wrote - and in fact some of what u wrote overlapped with my post above. i however, have to disagree with your general premise that the term "eye doctor" is not really that appropriate for optometrists, since i think the term is applied by the public towards the profession.

while i agree that optometrist is the better word - i've heard people say, "oh - i forgot - i need to see the eye doctor tomorrow", when they were referring to optometrists. i call myself an optometrist, and i think that's the best, most precise term. however, a sizeable portion of the public (for better or for worse) equate optometrist with the term, "eye doctor", and hence - under those circumstances, i don't think it's inappropriate for someone to say:
I'm an optometrist, you know, an "eye doctor".

I've heard people say this too. For the most part, it's an innocent mistake and an understandable one, and it might have to do with laziness and not wanting to the utter the word "optometrist", but the general public is often uneducated (e.g., a high school or maybe community college education at best) and wouldn't know the difference between an MD or OD if their life depended on it. There are some folks out there who think vets and physicians have the exact same training, but some choose to work with animals while others choose to work with people. Likewise, some people think dentists are physicians who just specialize in teeth.

So, because most Americans are lazy, uneducated, and grossly uninformed (yes, sorry, it's a bad generalization, but sadly, often true), and like being spoon-fed information from the media (again, my opinion, but usually true), I can understand why they would say "eye doctor" to refer to anyone who treats or examines conditions of the eye. I've heard folks call PAs and NPs "the doctor", which makes me cringe (no offense to the PAs and NPs) out there, and in the hospital where I work, PhD/PsyD psychologists are called "docs" and "head shrinkers" just like the psychiatrists. That doesn't bother me so much, however.

My point was, however, that you're never going to control what your patients think or call you, but you can help model their behaviour by educating them. As an optometrist, you should always refer to yourself as an optometrist. If you're greeted by that dull, vacant look that often accompanies "big words", then you can qualify by saying "eye doctor" and you'd probably get an immediate head nod. But, by introducing yourself as an optometrist, you're teaching that person something new, perhaps, so it's okay.

For a while there, I was treating a segment of people from a very uneducated, semi-rural area. When I told them I was a psychiatrist, I would often get this dull look devoid of recognition or understanding. So, I'd often reply, "you know, a head doctor -- a head shrinker -- mental doctor" and that seemed to work.

There's definitely nothing wrong with you saying "eye doctor", however. Nothing illegal or deceptive. Personally, I just think an OD should say optometrist first, then follow up with a qualification if optometrist fails.

 

[Ben Chudner]

If it's really true that ODs cannot attend medical conferences, then I would say that's invidious discrimination. At state and national sponsored psychiatric conferences (MPS, ApA, AMA, etc.), there are MD/DO psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurse practitioners, and even PAs in attendence. We all benefit from shared knowledge. Likewise, I've been to APA (note: ApA = Amer Psychiatric Ass'n and APA = American Psychological Ass'n) conferences and even social work conferences. I've also gone to conferences geared for pharmacists, school psychologists, and neurologists. Shared knowledge benefits everyone -- especially the patients.

If this is true that ODs are precluded from attending ophth conferences, maybe the AOA should do some lobbying or hire some high-powered attorneys and take this to court. Just a thought.

OD's are not restricted from attending all medical conferences, just some ophthalmology meetings. I really don't think the AOA wants to waste its resources on such a ridiculous issue when there are plenty of other excellent educational meetings available.