Originally Posted by
Ian MacIvor
Response to egbert, posted October 17, 2005:
egbert, you have got to be kidding, right?
Before I begin, I need to premise my comments. My name is Ian MacIvor, I am a licensed optician and licensed contact lens practitioner in the province of Alberta, Canada. I am also the Program Head of the Optical Sciences department at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT). I want to thank Nick Atkinson (Registrar) and David Martens (Chairman) of the College of Opticians of British Columbia (COBC) for inviting myself and others to attend the cited offering as a volunteer for the seminar (I was there too). I thank all the board of the COBC for their impressive efforts- British Columbia has become a leader in North America for the advancement of the profession of opticianry.
Allow me to explain to you (egbert) some of the folly of your opinion (even though it is your opinion) and help you understand part of a larger picture, and that you may become a more productive member of your College. I’ll walk you through this item by item from the top, using the first person in all my references.
To start I cannot fathom your thought process (or lack of) for cc-ing the two major newspapers for Vancouver (by extension, the whole province, and now, the world) as well as the Minister of Health for the Province of British Columbia. You have to presume they will care a whit about your rant (here it is called venting, but your diatribe was not venting, it was a rant…) but I doubt so.
I cannot speak for the College staff that hosted the conference, but I doubt Dr. Jalie ‘chose’ his topics. I believe Dr. Jalie probably gave a list of the many subjects he could speak on, and the College chose the ones you received. Anyway, I fail to see how lectures on ophthalmic optics are in any way inappropriate for opticians. Yes, every member in attendance was a qualified, certified, registered, licensed (by the provincial legislature) individual. As you must surely know the whole point of ‘professional development’ (a term I personally prefer to ‘continuing education’, but that is my concern) is exactly that- development of the skills you currently have, as well as those you want. Many of the members who were at the seminar took their schooling more than a few years ago, and found the refresher enlightening.
To a specific point you made about the (perceived) pointlessness of a topic- such as the inflammability of lens materials- I take the opposite view: I myself did not know the combustion point of a CR-39 lens, but I thought it was fascinating that ophthalmic research has actually looked at this standard. To the point, I too was mystified why a manufacturer would need to determine the flash-point (via laser) of a given lens material until I used some critical thinking and realized that this particular lecture point was a small part of the explanation of ISO standardization as it relates to ophthalmic lens materials.
Even if we exclude the ISO standards portion, the session was about lens materials, so why not include data on such? Let me be crystal clear on a point though: I am not defending or rationalizing the seminars hosted. I was an enthusiastic and active volunteer (who attended out of my own willingness) a seminar that was no charge (oh, did someone not mention that?).
I won’t waste our time on responding to your third paragraph (vis-à-vis the language incomprehensibility) as others have already addressed your obvious contradiction in thought; to wit, if the lecture were so basic, how could you find it incomprehensible? Moreover, your reference to the members who use English as a second language is racist. I am ashamed for you. If Dr. Jalie (a world reknown speaker) was unclear, I have to ask: At what point did you attempt to ask for clarification?
Your fourth paragraph indicates you wished to received (by example) information on new lens materials such as Trivex and Dr. Jalie did exactly that- as part of a bigger picture: new lens materials (vs. existing materials); please employ critical thinking skills…
Your single sentence fifth paragraph needs some work.
For those not able to attend, you should know the afternoon seminar was spent in round table discussions debating (in small groups of about 15 people per) a range of pro’s and con’s of how to award continuing education/ professional development credits for seminars hosted by agencies such as manufacturers, suppliers, soft skill facilitators, an association, etc. This was an open forum, and as such, you had more than ample opportunity to address your grievance. The whole point of that session was for you, the member, to tell your regulatory body what you want, how to do it, and why that should be. I cannot think of a better method for feedback, yet, you post your views on-line and disparage the College anyway. I think someone has an axe to grind.
On the subject of sight testing (here we go again), I say to you: grow up. First, no-one is forcing you to become a sight testing optician. It is not a part of mandatory curriculum provided by any of the educational institutes in your province. Refraction theory and procedures are offered to existing licensed opticians who wish to further their knowledge. No-one has said you must go off and become a sight testing optician, just as no-one said you must become a contact lens practitioner. The entry level to this industry is as a dispensing (spectacle) optician, period. Those who have the thirst for more knowledge, or can foresee a business opportunity, will take the necessary steps to enhance the number of tools at their disposal to do so. In simple terms, no-one is forcing you to become a sight testing optician- In Alberta (by example) only 20% (at most) of the membership have a license in the advanced practice of contact lens dispensing; Those who are more highly educated command a higher salary (usually over $20,000 per year difference). I know of opticians who have taken the advanced training and NOT gone on to licensure- they simply wanted the education; they wanted to become a better, more effective optician by expanding their knowledge base. Further, by extension of your comment and the above stated numbers, when (not if, but when) opticians are licensed to refract, it is likely only a minority of opticians will chose to do so.
There is simply no data to support your claim that opticians performing sight tests/ simple refractions endanger the general population. Multiple policy papers support this- contact your College or association for more information. Also, considering your provincial government does not pay for refractions done for those between ages 18 and 65, I fail to see how your statement has any credibility in paragraph six: “The health risks posed to the public at large far outweigh any financial benefits to the government…”
It is evident to me that you should not have sent a letter to the government or the press considering how poorly thought out your opinion is (granted, it is your opinion). Probably the main reason I feel the need to respond vigorously is that you post such inflammatory comments, but anonymously. I have to ask: what repercussions do you expect when stating your opinion in an honest and straightforward manner? In fairness, I can’t help but wonder if you do so only to rile those who care about our profession.
In the future, I suggest you become active in the direction your profession is going (rather than b*tching about it). Apologies to all those into reading this thread (and now the length of it), but unsubstantiated posts should not be allowed- as a former moderator on Optiboard I would never remove this thread. Instead, I will now use it as an example of the misguided thinking that can permeate the philosophy of the less informed.
Sincerely,
Ian MacIvor
Program Head
NAIT Optical Sciences
Edmonton, AB
PS There were several other comments that I could address specifically, but common sense and virtue prevent me from doing so. Meanwhile, I await your response.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks