Compared to me, when it comes to managing vision disorders, you are an idiot, John.
You're just too idiotic to know it.
Compared to me, when it comes to managing vision disorders, you are an idiot, John.
You're just too idiotic to know it.
Here's the deal, guys.
You can't replace a human brain with a human brain's contrivance. The machine may run its little program quickly, but how good is the program?
You are going to see, in the near future, much to your disagreeance, "bot-docs". You will have a lesser copay to actually talk to a robot. (Yes, you will pay for the privilege.)
"What symptom are you having today? Please say or press '1' for 'runny nose'."
All you geniuses don't seem to get that there are a MILLION reasons why that patient can't see, and there are a MILLION different types of patients which need consideration when devising one of a MILLION treatment plans.
So your robots aren't going to help.
What's more, just because UBER has driverless cars coming up, does that mean it's really a good idea? Nope, it's a bad idea, for a host of reasons.
(You can ponder the connection to this discussion.)
Gee drk- Didn't the Ophthalmologists make the same argument when OD's wanted to diagnose, treat and prescribe for medical conditions?
From my archives;
"Charles Prentice, the father of Refracting Opticians
Charles Prentice’s pioneering studies in optics earned him the praise of prominent ophthalmologists at home and abroad. But his status as a leading refracting optician also inspired contempt among medical doctors regarded Mr. Prentice’s trade as a threat to medicine.
Trained as a mechanical engineer in Germany, Mr. Prentice applied his knowledge of math and physics to the field of optics. In 1890, his papers on the “Law of Declaration” and “A Metric System of Numbering and Measuring Prisms” won him a worldwide reputation as a brilliant innovator.
Mr. Prentice and a handful of others formed the Optical Society of the State of New York in 1895, in part to counter M.D.s who accused refracting opticians of violating medical practice laws. In 1896, Mr. Prentice successfully argued that fitting glasses constituted the treatment of light, not disease, and so did not infringe upon medicine’s purview."
And This;
Definitions
Registered Opticians:
"An expert in the bending of light, through the use of lenses of varying parameters, for the purpose of creating the sharpest or clearest possible image at various focal lengths."
Refraction:
"The bending of light, through the use of lenses of varying parameters, for the purpose of creating the sharpest or clearest possible image at various focal lengths."
Who cares? It's not the same thing.Originally Posted by Uncle Fester
Gee drk- Didn't the Ophthalmologists make the same argument when OD's wanted to diagnose, treat and prescribe for medical conditions?
The stuff I do is as good as an ophthalmologist, or I let them do what I'm not qualified to do.
Nonetheless, I went to school for it, am up to date on the science, and have had 25 years of experience.
None of that matters, here.
What does matter is that someone is advocating looking into an autorefractor instead of getting vision care.
Charles F. Prentice, the father of American optometry ... - Scoop.it
www.scoop.it/t/optometry.../p/.../charles-f-prentice-the-father-of-american-optometry
Mar 6, 2013 - In 1895 Charles F. Prentice threatened with jail for charging a fee for eye ... to describe refractive procedures, although refracting opticians were ...
I happen to agree. I was taught a great lesson in NY when I worked for an OMD. I re-did a refraction on a recheck patient with 2+ nuclear cataracts, simple right? She said to send patient for blood work, sugar off the chart. She taught me to think "whole body", not just eyes. Smartest Doctor I know. Not for me.
I don't want to come across as the jerkstore.
It's just what you said, OBX. There's way too much that goes into it.
Some simplified machine is not doing anyone any favors. It's an urban legend.
Technology is awesome and scary. I cannot understand why ODs and Opticians are so afraid. Optometrists should realize by now that independent opticians are less than 8% if not less of their competition. Yet you bark at a guy who is providing a job to an OD and giving him the ability to practice medical optometry and taking the boring refraction out of the picture. No one has died from poor refractions (although they may be very good) and the melanomas are being caught by the OD that works for him (or out of his office). I can see you being very unhappy with a refracting online monitor but give us a break. That online monitor was developed by one of your kind an OD...it wasnt and Optician. If Jodi was an employee of the OD will that make you guys feel better?
Optometry is missing a huge opportunity. Expensive technology is out there that can do a complete eye exam and the best thing is that you can benefit by being the captain of such ship. Yet they pick a fight with a simple optician. I hope you are smart enough to engage your real competition that has eaten most of the pie. We can laugh on the video (the italianos)that everyone is posting but it really should make you cry.
CNG
Thank you! We do have a med school at the facility where I was seen, which is a conglomerate of two of the biggest universities in the country, and so much research goes on here. There is a new eye center built with a donor grant, and it's massive, state-of-the-art. I have a friend who is an optician there, and he loves it. All of that, yet they don't have one, and there aren't any others available in private practice either. I'm not sure there's one in the state who still practices. That's crazy.
We can be taught to refract, but only the doctor prescribes.
WRT Aberometry/Auotrefraction, the objective results are only good enough for starting points.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4401825/
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Its the issue of the "Unknown, Unknown" in information theory. One is not aware of what they do not know. It's the most dangerous quadrant of the information quadrangle.
Tired frame of reference. This has nothing to do with "competition". The 1970's wants its hot-button-issue back.
It's nothing personal.Yet you bark at a guy who is providing a job to an OD and giving him the ability to practice medical optometry and taking the boring refraction out of the picture.
Nobody is more or less equipped to practice "medical optometry" based on whether they refract or delegate it. That's a non-issue.
P.S. Refractions aren't boring. Are you going for the old "we need illegal refractors to do the job that American optometrists don't want to do"? Sounds vaguely familiar...
They don't have to die from that. Has anyone died from an impacted molar? Allergies? Acne? Straw man argument: non-fatal conditions don't need a doctor-level practitioner to fix it.No one has died from poor refractions (although they may be very good) and the melanomas are being caught by the OD that works for him (or out of his office).
I'm well aware of that. I know who he/they are.I can see you being very unhappy with a refracting online monitor but give us a break.That online monitor was developed by one of your kind an OD...it wasnt and Optician.
What matters is that the doctor is treating vision disorders. The rest, legal stuff.If Jodi was an employee of the OD will that make you guys feel better?
An opportunity to practice poor optometry? I'll pass.Optometry is missing a huge opportunity. Expensive technology is out there that can do a complete eye exam and the best thing is that you can benefit by being the captain of such ship. Yet they pick a fight with a simple optician. I hope you are smart enough to engage your real competition that has eaten most of the pie. We can laugh on the video (the italianos)that everyone is posting but it really should make you cry.
But we're not talking about how optometry practices. That's not the point. The point is not even the "self-practice" of optometry. Do your own sex-change, if you want, in our free country.
The issue is non-licensed professionals practicing optometry or medicine on citizens. They haven't earned the right to do that.
Last edited by drk; 09-15-2016 at 06:21 PM.
Same old story of protectionism. The reality is that technology is and will continue to evolve. Standard not based on b&m ods finances but on the idea of patients safety. Instead of refraction how about a full exam based on the latest equipment with the highest reliability managed by omd instead of ods provided remotely? Once federal legislation happens many professions will change. Why not ods using this technology?
Problem is ods income will drop?
Cng
Why are we talking about refraction in the future? We're gonna have implant/lazer/lasik/stem cell therapy ( growing new crystaline lenses with ST's already in the UK). No more presbyopia. No myopia, No hyperopia. ...
We're all old time' blacksmiths makin' horse shoes. We just haven't realized it yet. Technology will make us a mention on Wikipedia...
I'm glad I'm at the zenith of my career. I've seen amazing advances. Hang on.....more to come. Treatment of visual disorders will sooner or later not include eye wear to correct.
Death will be optional in about a hundred years, if you can afford it.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks