NM Support Ophthalmologists

[HarryChiling]

no longer playing in this sand box

[drk]

Choose wisely, Harry. You've chosen ophthalmology over optometry? Based on what?

Do you think the ophthalmologists' attempt to remove minor surgical procedures suits the needs of that state's citizens? How so, Harry? What interest do you have for the citizens from a state over a thousand miles away from yours?

No, I'm afraid your post shows a juvenile rivalry or vendetta. And you want yourself to be taken seriously?

You've made a fool of yourself. I won't extend it to other members of your profession.

[Foveator]

Harry,

Perhaps you've been living on another planet for the past decade, but optometrists have been doing all of those things SAFELY and LEGALLY for quite some time. This appears to be no more than a technical clarification of vague language to deliniate more precisely what ODs can do in a particular state. No more; no less.

You make it sound like the sky is falling. If you lived in a small town 200 or 300 miles away from the nearest big city with an ophthalmologist and needed a piece of metal removed from your cornea (something that every OD does routinely), your version of this law would require that the patient be driven, in pain, for HOURS to the nearest ophthalmologist for a routine foreign body removal. Currently, the patient can go down the street to the nearest OD and have it done, quicker and at a lower cost.

How lucky the residents of New Mexico are to have a vigilent optician in Pennsylvania watching out for their interests. I just hope you are never in that situation of having to be constant pain while being driven 4 or 5 hours for a procedure that could have been done locally in just a few minutes.

[HarryChiling]

no longer playing in this sand box

[icare]

Whoops, Harry, I think you meant to post this over at the Dark Ages forum. :hammer:

[Oedema]

The ophthalmologists have the interest of the residents of NM at heart, me I just see an opportunity for opticians to side wih a powerfull lobbying group that can help push some of our agenda's, it's not going to be optometry and since ophthalmology already has their techs refracting why not side with such an open minded group.

Harry,

The only problem I see in your reasoning is that while a handful of ophthalmologists wouldn't mind supporting the aspirations of opticianry, you are forgetting that their big lobbying buddy, the AMA, is generally oppossed to advancing the scope of ANY other profession. CRNA's, NP's, PA's, DPM's.... you name it are on the AMA's watch list. Their point of view; don't give up one last little piece of what physicians do to other providers. How would it be in the interests of medicine to give away somthing like refraction privileges to opticians?

[fjpod]

Harry,

Your rhetoric is totally disingenuous and will never be fruitful. While opticianry will advance someday (maybe refraction, maybe uniform licensure, maybe something else), it won't be because of your spiteful attitude towards optometry. Only a positive attitude about your own profession, will advance your own profession. Whenever opthalmology has used spitework and negativism to supress optometry, they have lost.

So, while I may be spitting into the wind, I would urge you to reconsider your approach.

[Chris Ryser]

Originally Posted by drk
I
I draw patients for eye care services that you cannot provide.

drk is right............................ O + O + O = 100%

The 3 O's have to find a way to get together. There are many ways of doing it, as mentioned above.

MDs actually love to practice surgery medicine, but sell glasses to boost the profits.

OD's originally were not interested in manual optics, and many still have no finishing lab of their own and don't even do the little jobs like tinting and UV treatments. They used to be happy being the doctor who checked the eyes for visual and medical problems. Somehow they also went into selling the end product to boost profits.

Opticians if properly trained are the craftsmen to work the final product.

It makes sense that there has to be a cooperation between the optician and one of the two other O's.

If the optician does not have a supply of prescriptions he will not eat, while the 2 other O's continue to flourish, but very often do not sell a perfect end product because they and their staff lack the qualities an optician is supposed to have.

A commercial fusion of 2 of them or even better, of all three together under a financial arrangement that would keep all of the principals happy, one could assume that there would be a solution that could withstand the chain system as well as the imperialism of the big corporations.

[Barry Santini]

[quote=Chris Ryser;177771MDs actually love to practice surgery medicine, but sell glasses to boost the profits.
[/quote]

I see it differently, Chris: MD's feel that they are "entitled" to leveraging the *medical* imprimatur of their Rx "prescriptions" into more money....at an optician's expense.

It appears to me to be a one way street....for them!

Barry

[HarryChiling]

no longer playing in this sand box

[Fezz]

I think we may be reading more into this then is really needed.

You may agree or disagree with Harry. Thats fine.

But, I think he should be applauded for at least bringing awareness to an issue that could affect the three O's in a state. And to broaden that, it may stir some heated debate and conversation on what could affect the three O's nation wide. I for one, am always for the side of becoming active in your cause and taking an active role in YOUR government. Let your voices be heard for, against, or unsure...get educated and just be heard.


Thanks Harry. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[drk]

Thanks Chris.

I'm going to restrict my discussions to "grown-ups" from now on.

[HarryChiling]

no longer playing in this sand box

[ziggy]

I never stopped being amazed by people. As an optician I would support an OD right to do minor surgery as long as OD's would agree to stop selling glasses. Last fall, I contacted the AOA to ask a few questions for a paper I was writing. One of the questions I ask was "what does the AOA feel the scope of opticianry should be". The response was that the AOA does not feel it should commit on the scope of another profession. Yet the AOA has, along with state organizations, blocked the licensing of opticians in "non-license" states. If thats not committing I dont know what is. The problem is, that as a whole, OD's want it all. You, as a group, see no need for opticians, and you also see no harm in doing medical procedures. If you would take care of the refractions and disease management, let us take care of the glasses and contacts, and let the MD's take care of the surgery life would be much nicer.

[HarryChiling]

no longer playing in this sand box

[fjpod]

Reconsider what, not letting people know that opometry is in the legislator trying to increase their scope of practice.

No, my post was clear. Reconsider using negativism and yellow journalism to advance the cause of opticianry.

If you support ophthalmology stepping on optometry's neck when it goes to the legislature, why are you surprised when it happens to you?

[HarryChiling]

no longer playing in this sand box