Optometry vs Opticianry......Why does it have to be WAR?

[Matthew]

There may be some animosity between the O's, but in my personal experience I have had a great relationship with Optometrists for the most part.

In my town we have a a lot of Optometrists as well as Ophthamologists.

I afford them the respect they deserve, they afford me the respect and consideration I deserve. Its a two way street relationship.

At the political level things may be different because all want the bigger portion of the pie.

On a professional level I feel like my my opinions and and observations are held with importance. I feel that respect is something you have to earn in the optical community.

[HarryChiling]

It does sometimes feel like a war, and none of the O's are winning. The real winners are corporations with their chains that will give you your money back if not satisfied and the insurance companies with the idea that a decent pair of frame and lenses should be provided to their customers for $1.00 and they expect change. Opticians have almost become retail sales people and guess who's next on the food chain? Optometrists, we should be working together at the least it creates a buffer for your profession after all they have to get through us to get to you.

[Framebender]

If all I had to endure over the last 40 years was drive by insults I'd be a happy camper! When was the last time you had someone look you directly in the eye and tell you that you don't know what you're talking about?? Or smile at you in a job evaluation and say I'd like to give you a raise, but your educational background just doesn't justify it?? Or had some twenty something yell at you that they're the Doctor and how dare you question their judgement?? (I didn't finish out the day on that one.) Or my personal favorite. . .You know if you were smarter you could have been and OD.

You know in the old days we used to drink and play cards together. You couldn't have looked around the table and told who was who. It wasn't until the group in the early 70's started getting out of school that they seemed to think that there was a G in front of OD. The ones that started introducing themselves as Doctor in social situations. We helped each other out and got along just fine.

When people start telling you directly to your face that you're full of s***! Then I might have some sympathy. In the meantime I still believe the way to stop the war is to just quit working for them!! And after this last fiasco I won't be doing it again!!

[chip anderson]

Of course Dude, I heard some statistics yesterday that only 20% of college students actually make use of thier degree (other than to get a job), the rest end up doing things for which the degree had no application. Could It be that what we need are more trade schools in most endevors?

[Graduate]

Graduate,
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't you think the statement about cake eating optometrists taking bread (dry bread, no less) out of opticians mouths is a bit of an overstatement or unfair generalization?

And if you and others think this is a fair statement, I don't see how the war will ever end.

FJPOD Thanks for bringing my mind on right track, i apologize for unfair generalization.

I will take exit from this thread,not to hurt any one anymore.

[EyeManFla]

I know that I am jumping into this late, but.......

In thirty years of doing this, I have rarely had a problem with an OD or an MD as far as professional standing is concerned.

What I witness on a DAILY basis is the contension between ODs and MDs. I know one MD here in SWFLA who has made it his mission in life to do away with optometry!
It is unfortunate that there is room for everyone and everything in this business, except mutual respect.

[Judy Canty]

I'm sure that everyone of us has had pleasant and unplesant encounters with others in our professions. While the concept may be difficult to swallow, it's time to start building new relationships. Dredging up past incidents is not helpful in any way.

Rear-view mirrors are always smaller than windshields.

[Darryl Meister]

Of course Dude, I heard some statistics yesterday that only 20% of college students actually make use of thier degree (other than to get a job), the rest end up doing things for which the degree had no application.

Keep in mind that many job opportunities don't necessarily require extensive training in a particular discipline; the recruiters just want to know that you have a well-rounded, post-secondary education. Basically, "getting the Degree card punched" opens up more opportunities for you.

However, you are more likely to see someone with a graduate degree or a hard science/engineering degree pursuing job opportunities related to his or her field, since such jobs will frequently demand intensive training and education, and will offer higher salaries as a result. A person with a BA in Business may end up doing anything from serving as an admin assistant to managing a small buiness. A person with an MS in Physics will probably end up with a calculator and a lab notebook -- or teaching somewhere.

[jediron1]

No, she just noted that this kind of statement was counterproductive to a civil discussion.


Nevertheless, insults and personal attacks have never been acceptable, and are a violation of the posting guidelines.


She has simply been an optician long enough to know better.

1. I don't see the statements by the Doc's or Chip were counterproductive the way you and Judy construed them might be considered counterproduction but as set forth by the Doc's and Chip I did not see it or read it that way. Just my 2 cents.

2. Where were the personal attacks?

3. What does being an optician long enough have anything to do with what was being talked about?

[fjpod]

1. I don't see the statements by the Doc's or Chip were counterproductive the way you and Judy construed them might be considered counterproduction but as set forth by the Doc's and Chip I did not see it or read it that way. Just my 2 cents.

2. Where were the personal attacks?

3. What does being an optician long enough have anything to do with what was being talked about?

Maybe you didn't read the thread right before this one, called "A must read for all opticians", which was closed by the moderators.

I was one of the ODs that lost his cool (judging from the damage done to my reputation). I apologize for using the word ignoramous, and from now on when I see misinformation given about any O profession, I will report it to the moderators.

[Darryl Meister]

1. How could rehashing the same issues that led to the closure of the thread that preceded this one (A Must Read for All Opticians) be productive? Chip and the others made several valid points in this thread, and I don't think anyone is questioning that. But I do think we're trying to move forward.

2. There were several personal attacks in the earlier thread, which was subsequently closed as a result. Heading down that same path in this thread would undoubtedly result in similar consequences -- and, at the very least, serve to perpetuate the animosity between optometry and opticianry.

3. Because if you've been in this industry for any significant length of time, you would have personally witnessed the steady decline of professional opticianry as a direct consequence -- in my opinion -- of opticianry's lack of educational guidelines (much less, requirements) and fragmented leadership. I don't think this observation makes you "anti-optician."

[hcjilson]

One of the underlying causes of this situation is that just within the last 30 years, Optometry has become the primary source of eyecare.It has happened that way because the educational requirements have been upgraded and Optometry has kept step with the times. The requirements for Opticianry have remained static.This was not done at the expense of Opticianry, or Ophthalmology, but rather the advancement of the profession. The net result may "at the expense of the 2 remaining O's" but that was not the intent. I applaud Optometry for the foresight of those spearheading this advancement, I am sure it was not easy for them, but they prevailed.

Heck, Optometry has provided a blueprint for Opticianry to build upon. I have friends on all sides of this profession. Fortunately I practice where we all manage to get along (despite the "occasional'' zinger fired for effect) I think we've mostly gotten to the point where we realize we're not going to write or fill every Rx in our area and despite economic ups and downs, we all still manage to hang around. Often we help each other out which is the way it should be. Its the way it can be for our respective professions as well.

In short, it doesn't have to be war. In spite of a few minor lapse's, this thread is proof of that. Let's build on that.

[stephanie]

I don't think in this profession we are ever going to ever be able to dismantle the fence. I have had more OD's and MD's that I have got along with than I haven't. I was simply making the statement all the O's need each other. It is easier to get along than it is to slam one another.



Steph

[Chris Ryser]

.................you would have personally witnessed the steady decline of professional opticianry as a direct consequence -- in my opinion -- of opticianry's lack of educational guidelines (much less, requirements) and fragmented leadership. I don't think this observation makes you "anti-optician."

and this

Heck, Optometry has provided a blueprint for Opticianry to build upon.

just about sum's it all up.......................now, instead of moaning bring up some propositions for a positive result.

[hcjilson]

For Opticianry:

To begin with, a concerted effort by the ABO/NCLE. NAO, and OAA to establish a single set of educational and clinical standards by which opticians would become credentialed. The establishment of CE that is truly education, not some of the stuff that passes for CE today.

Individual states must pursue registration in states where licensing does not exist today, and states that have it must strengthen it. Here's where Optometry and Ophthalmology can assist, through their state societies lobbying efforts.State societies in licensed states should be enlisted in this effort. I am astounded that a state which reguires the registration of barbers, does not require it of Opticians as well.

Many will follow, saying that the chains and organized Optometry will fight this, as they have done in Alaska, but I still think it is possible, particularly if it is done up front and VERY publicly. Optometry and Ophthalmology may have their own agenda's but I don't think they would publicly stand in the way of consumer protection. It would paint them in a less than professional light and they wouldn't want that.

Anyway, thats the view from Cape Cod this morning.

hj

PS to Chris.....thanks for the opening!

[Chris Ryser]

........................... Here's where Optometry and Ophthalmology can assist, through their state societies lobbying efforts.State societies in licensed states should be enlisted in this effort. I am astounded that a state which reguires the registration of barbers, does not require it of Opticians as well.

................................but I still think it is possible, particularly if it is done up front and VERY publicly. Optometry and Ophthalmology may have their own agenda's but I don't think they would publicly stand in the way of consumer protection.

Harry, a perfect start. Your idea actually kills the two flies in one swap.

The 2 other O's could help, which would probably end the war with the exception of a few fanatics minded ones.

Doing it publicly and open will gain support from the public, who actually does not seem to know that the optical specialist (of course not every one) they are getting their glasses from does not have to have any special professional requirements.

A solution has to be found that also optical dispensers working for optometrist's and ophthalmologist's with dispensaries would fall under the same regulations. Same for on-line dispensaries.

Lets hear some more positive arguments how to correct the situation in an acceptable way for everybody.

[chip anderson]

Nice thought but It's been tried before in many states and by the time Optometry finds something it will approve the restrictions on Opticianry are so intense that Opticianry would be a fool to accept it. Of course employees in Opthalmology and Optometry offices are exempt so they are not affected by restrictions on independent opticianry.


Chip

[Chris Ryser]

Chip, maybe you forgot the mentioning of doing it in full view of the public..............which if you get it on your side. is a powerfull way of doing it.

[hcjilson]

Nice thought but It's been tried before in many states and by the time Optometry finds something it will approve the restrictions on Opticianry are so intense that Opticianry would be a fool to accept it. Of course employees in Opthalmology and Optometry offices are exempt so they are not affected by restrictions on independent opticianry.


Chip

What you have to do is get your ducks in a row first. I am speaking of gaining the support of the national organizations first, and frankly I don't think, given the proper approach, that it would be difficult to do that. I'm afraid that the "old guard" in opticianry could present a problem, but I've known most of them since the mid sixties and they don't want to appear in the negative either, at least in public. I think the key is to be VERY upfront so no one can miss it. ( It doesn't hurt to have the knowledge that former executive officers of the educational arm of Opticianry freely admit they have never taken even the elementary ABO examination. :bbg: ) I don't think they would be too loud in their opposition! (hints of blackmail but is not meant that way)

The people who can bring this about are here, albeit some, very quietly.From what I've heard from the OD's in this thread at least, are in favor of higher educational standards for our profession and provided we get the education, would not object to the expansion of our scope of practice. ( If I read correctly)

[Darryl Meister]

Nice thought but It's been tried before in many states and by the time Optometry finds something it will approve the restrictions on Opticianry are so intense that Opticianry would be a fool to accept it.

I was actually on the board of directors for the Opticians Association of Missouri about 13 years ago, when Missouri was inches away from getting a licensure bill passed -- after a great deal of effort and financial support. The optometrists were actually willing to support this bill, as long as there was no provision for fitting contact lenses independently.

Well, the Powers That Be in the OAM insisted on the contact lens fitting component. Of course, the optometrists fought it, as everyone knew they would, and the bill never made it through committee. So, Missouri has since remained an unlicensed state, and the OAM eventually disbanded. Oh, and Missouri opticians still can't fit contact lenses.

It's been almost 20 years since any state has advanced significant opticianry legislation. In this day and age, opticians should take what they can get in terms of legislation, because they probably won't getting anything else at all otherwise.

[hcjilson]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, it is indeed unfortunate that Optometry fights an ability to fit contact lenses. Collectively they must have forgotten that the corneal lenses they fit today were invented by an Optician not an Optometrist.( same true for sceleral if aged memory serves) That having been said, I agree that Opticians should focus on licensing. The remainder can come though legislation, or as in the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through litigation. (Commonwealth vs Collinson 1966) which has established the precedent. I think at this point in time, Optometry probably would not be as adamant about Contacts, they've set their sights considerably higher.Perhaps if Opticianry were to actively support Optometry in the expansion of their scope of practice, something could be worked out.

[fjpod]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, it is indeed unfortunate that Optometry fights an ability to fit contact lenses. Collectively they must have forgotten that the corneal lenses they fit today were invented by an Optician not an Optometrist.( same true for sceleral if aged memory serves) That having been said, I agree that Opticians should focus on licensing. The remainder can come though legislation, or as in the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through litigation. (Commonwealth vs Collinson 1966) which has established the precedent. I think at this point in time, Optometry probably would not be as adamant about Contacts, they've set their sights considerably higher.Perhaps if Opticianry were to actively support Optometry in the expansion of their scope of practice, something could be worked out.

I'm trying to be helpful here. Forgive me if I step on any toes.

I must tell you (all), I was VERY active in my state when we went for diagnostic and therapeutic priviledges. I am still active to some degree. Never did we plan on support from opticianry, ophthalmology, nor the ORA. We always planned for their opposition. In fact, even after ophthalmology "cooperated" and worked out a compromise with us that helped to move our therapeutics bill, they fought us tooth and nail in the aftermath during the credentialing phase to try and make sure no-one could get certified. When that failed, they lobbied insurance carriers not to enroll us in their plans, and when this failed they lobbied the carriers not to pay us.

It would be nice, and you should try to get it, but don't count on help from anybody but yourselves and your schools.

You've got to move forward on licensure based on an educational standard. Listen to all opticians and try to include everyone, but move forward with the positive thinkers, don't get bogged down with the nay sayers.

Now, I'm not an optician, and if you want me to shut up, I will.

[Darryl Meister]

Never did we plan on support from opticianry

But, of course, opticianry wasn't lobbying against you. And you did have to reach a compromise with the ophthalmologists, who were.

It is actually in optometry's best interest to have licensed opticians (bearing in mind that, at least as far as I know, an optometrist doesn't even have to employ a licensed optician as long as the optometrist is on site).

However, independent optometry's biggest competitors -- retail chains and independent dispensers -- generally will have to employ a licensed optician. I don't think optometrists have really thought this issue through. Further, even though retail chains have historically opposed licensure, I honestly think that they, too, would benefit from employing licensed, career opticians.

[fjpod]

It is actually in optometry's best interest to have licensed opticians (bearing in mind that, at least as far as I know, an optometrist doesn't even have to employ a licensed optician as long as the optometrist is on site).

You're right, an OD doesn't have to employ a licensed optician (neither does an OMD), but it is becoming increasingly foolish not to, as ophthalmic materials are becoming more numerous and more technologically advanced, and as optometric scope of practice has become more medical. I admit, I'm probably nor the average OD, but in my single office practice (3 ODs) we employ 3 LDOs.

However, independent optometry's biggest competitors -- retail chains and independent dispensers -- generally will have to employ a licensed optician. I don't think optometrists have really thought this issue through. Further, even though retail chains have historically opposed licensure, I honestly think that they, too, would benefit from employing licensed, career opticians.

I agree.

[Darryl Meister]

but it is becoming increasingly foolish not to, as ophthalmic materials are becoming more numerous and more technologically advanced, and as optometric scope of practice has become more medical.

Then you guys are running out of reasons not to support it.