There was a thread. . .

[Framebender]

that led to war in the general discussion area. It concerned sight testing by our brothers and sisters to the north. A couple of times I asked that some one who knows something about this to give us your take an what's happening. I don't blame you for not though since that thread went downhill faster than a 4 man bobsled!!

However I am still interested in what's going on up there and what your take is on it. Please, I am not doing this to create chaos. I talked to Bill McDonald about this several years ago and couldn't see how we could make it work with laws being what they are here in the US. I am interested in how you folks have managed to get this instituted. Do you see it as a good thing, a bad thing or just a fact of life. Under what circumstances are you allowed to sight test and under what restrictions?

I really am interested, but if you don't feel comfortable posting your views could you send them to me via PM or email me at opticstogo@yahoo.com .

Thank you in advance for your time and attention. I hope you're all having fun and making money!!

[Refractingoptician.com]

;;

[hcjilson]

For a definitive answer contact Shwing who is a member here, he's got a handle on it I think!

[Framebender]

For the information and the leads!! This is something that interests me because we have alot of people in the US that are under served optically.

I hope you're all having fun and making money!! And, thanks again!
:cheers:

[fjpod]

...we have alot of people in the US that are under served optically.

I hope you're all having fun and making money!! And, thanks again!
:cheers:

??
More than one manpower study indicates there is an oversupply of eyecare providers in the US. Do you mean that US citizens can't afford eyecare, or don't sign up for government assistance?...or that there aren't enough ECPs.

[Framebender]

I didn't do this to start any type of argument. Whatever you think or don't think, God bless you. I am only looking for information to satisfy my own curiousity. If that's ok with you!?!

[fjpod]

I didn't do this to start any type of argument. Whatever you think or don't think, God bless you. I am only looking for information to satisfy my own curiousity. If that's ok with you!?!

Fine, never mind

If you don't wish to discuss it, we don't have to.

[Dave Nelson]

The legislation is farther ahead here in British Columbia than anywhere else in North America. Three of us began sight testing using new software-driven refracting equipment in march of 98. A local ophthalmologist reviewed the data and graphical information and began issuing prescriptions. Optometrists complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons about the ophthalmologist, and also took us to court. The Physicians and Surgeons ruled the ophthalmologist was acting properly, and the courts ruled against the optomerists. The optometrists appealed, lost again, filed complaints with the College of Opticians, who took us to court again. Optometrists applied to the courts for intervenor staus in the action. Both the College and the optometrists lost. The next Day, I appeared on the front page of our local newspaper under the headline: "Local opticians win in eye of B.C. Supreme Court Storm." The judge ruled that the optometrists exaggerated the claim of danger to the public. In view of the court case, the Ministry of Health invited stakeholder groups to meet in B.Cs capital, Victoria. I attended that meeting, and it was there that the B.C. Eye Physicians andSurgeons Association put the idea of opticians lobbying for a free-standing refraction on the table. They went on record as stating they would not object to it if some restrictions were in place. At some point in all of this, asmall group of us formed the "Association of Sight -Testing Opticians of B.C. We soon had a large membership as sight-testing was expanding rapidly. I chaired the Association and we were soon recognized as a stake-holder group by the Goverment. Some time after that, I became somewhat aquainted with the Minister of Health for British Columbia, and when she and I were driving down the road one day, she asked if I thought B.C. opticians were ready for a free-standing refraction. At the time optometrists were filing complaints to everyone they could about the Dr.s who were signing sight test results, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons were getting flooded with complaints by optometrists. They filed so many complaints eventually they eroded their own credibility. I went on T.V, radio, newspapers, I debated optometrists in every form of medium there is. The Minister of Health for Alberta stated he could see no reason opticians should't refract, and stated while an eye exam might be a good thing to have, he could see no reason why the state should compel a citizen to have one. While this was going on, EVERY jurisdiction in Canada ruled routine eye exams were not "essential" and de-listed them from Canada's admired free medical services plan. When B.C. de-listed, optometrists accused opticians of "starting" refracting to "take advantage" of the fact people now had to pay. We had been sight testing for a very lonf time BEFORE de-listing. Eventually, optometrists accused the Ministry of Health of letting opticians do "eye exams" in the media, while we insisted over and over and over and over, that we did not do eye exams, we still recomended eye exams, that it was important to have eye exams and we continued to arrange eye exams for those who wanted them. Eventually, most stakeholders (except optometrists) agreed we should be able to refract if it was made absolutly clear the difference between and eye exam and a refraction. We also NEVER tested children, seniors or those with high risk factors like diabetes. The restrictions are in place as we speak, are enforced by the College of Opticians, and are currently being reviewed by the Ministry. They have 8000 pages of consultation on the subject, inclding a number of letters of support from ophthalmologists. I am sick of the debate, I cant for the life of me understand why informed citizens can't make up their own minds about when they want an eye exam. Thousands of pairs of ready-made reading glasses are purchased every day by people whe have never had an eye exam. Are they in danger? Should they have an eye exam? Of course they should. But I wont support any legislation that MAKES them have one before they spend $5 on a pair. And for heavens sake PLEASE dont bring up the "missed pathology" we aren't missing pathology. you can't MISS PATHOLOGY IFYOU AINT LOOKING for it. My barber isn't missing pathology. he's cutting my hair. Even my doctor, if I go to him with a sore finger, won't look for a retinal detatchment. At my age they sure like to snap on the rubber glove, but they dont "miss pathology" if I tell them what they can do to themselves with their own rubber gloves... Its about making an informed choice. You may argue till the bovines come home that its a poor choice, and you are most welcome to your opinion. You can advertise the importance of an eye exam, you can advise it, but you may not dictate that a person has no choice and must have an eye exam because you decide its better for them. There. Thats the short form of whats happening in B.C.

[spartus]

¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

You looked like you could use some of those.

[mlm]

A timeline of events in BC:
http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/critic...nghistory1.pdf

From the afternoon sitting of the Legislative Assembly, May 19, 2004:
http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard/3...519p.htm#11237

SIGHT TESTING BY OPTICIANS

P. Nettleton: On April 19 the College of Physicians and Surgeons asked this government to reconsider enacting a regulation that would allow opticians to prescribe eyeglasses without medical supervision. The college claimed this regulation would "introduce a significant element of risk to patients." My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Will the minister heed the advice of this respected medical authority and fully review this proposed regulation?

Hon. C. Hansen: I welcome the question. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that automated sight testing is in any way harmful or inaccurate. That is an admission that comes from, I think, everyone involved in this field — whether it's the ophthalmologists, the optometrists or the opticians. The fact of the matter is that for the last number of years, there have been opticians using automated sight-testing equipment in this province. What we are bringing in are regulations which manage that, so that the interests of the individual are protected and people understand the importance of an eye health exam to determine the other issues that they may be faced with.

I've certainly had lots of meetings with different groups that are involved in this issue. I think the more people understand what's behind it, the more they realize that this is a very sound direction that government is going.

Position of the College of Physicians & Surgeons as of Fall 2001: see page 3
https://www.cpsbc.ca/resources/cps/p..._Fall_2001.pdf

[Framebender]

After going through all of this stuff I have a better idea of what's going on. So thank you Dave, MLM and to everyone else that has given me information. You folks are the best. Thank you!!

[optigrrl]

"Throughout the 1800’s, opticians fabricated lenses (George Airy made the first cylinder lens in 1827), and refracted clients with trial lenses they dept on hand. At this time, we were considered refracting opticians. Around 1900, refracting opticians adopted the name “optometrist”. It was in 1920 that the first optometry law passed hence the addition of the third “O” in our field. In some countries, the original model of ophthalmologist, and refracting optician still exist and operate successfully. "

History of Opticianry...

Great argument about "seeing your Dr. for a sore finger and detecting retinal detachment".