Originally Posted by
HarryChiling
Fjpod,
It's good to hear your point of view, I agree that GG is no model for anything and that is agreed upon by all I believe. I do want to add that your comment about
Do not apply to opticians here in the states, I hate to say this because it is not what I believe, but something that has been forced on my profession. I as an optician do not have to take the patients welfare into account when I make decisions. In our state opticians have tryed to be part of the health care system and it has been optometry and retail chains that have insured that opticians remain sales oriented staff, apparetly their is no harm that can be done by anybody making and selling glasses. So in a sense yes it does make great business sense to have opticians refract, after all no harm can come of improper lenses placed in front of someones eyes (refraction). Optometrists as doctors on the other hand do have to take into consideration the good and welfare of the public they serve and for that you have my respect, however your profession has on numerous occasions, legislatively been devious and have colluded with public servants of the state to squash bills that were meant for the good of the public (licensed opticians). I hold myself to higher standards than optometry holds me too.
It wasn't clinical care back then and the arguement is that refraction is not clinical care now. Back then you would have been called an optician and you should have been proud to call yourself that. It was this past prestige that optometry built its foundations on so for you to bellitle it is to shake the very foundations of your own house. Back then opticians had to have skills in metalurgy, optics, chemistry, art, science and various other skills to perform the jobs that they did. It was optometry that split off and created a profession that focused on the science of refraction, at first you did not have the right to call yourselves doctors because you refracted. That did not mean that the science in opticianry was lost. To this day a majority of optometrists don't have a clue how to fabricate a pair of eyeglasses with the very same equipment in their offices, while many opticians are trying to learn refraction and various other diagnostic skills. If we are not allowed to use them for the good of the public on our own then why are we trusted to use them in the offices of optometrists. The AOA has even created a paraoptometric field where they have their techs learning all these skills, why would they do that if opticianry already has these skills.
I think optometry needs to step back and take a look at the whole picture objectively. The precious scripts you write and hold so highly are allowed to be fabricated by dimwits in your very same office, and the motivation is to save a few bucks. If this isn't greed I don't know what is. As an optician, I value my art and skills, but every optometrist in town hires an idiot and starts making eyeglasses based on cost instead of value therefore devalueing my products and skills to the point where in my state the public just doesn't respect what I do. If opticians were to offer refractions for free, guess whos services would be devalued? Any takers, how long before your level of respect is nill? Realisticaly the arguement over refraction is over "dollars and sense" (absolutely not misspelled). As an optician in a state that does not recognize me in the health care system it's OK for me to argue the monetary advatages and I peform refractions everyday when I take a old pair of glasses off a client and place the new ones on and they say their old one is better, I take the old pair back and neutralize (which should have been done by the doctor who prescribed the Rx) and find many cases where the pd was wrong in the old pair. (not the doctors fault right, it should be; are you neutralizing for prism?), or I find that the base curves are wrong (not the doctors fault right, does magnification factor into your prescribing at all?), the point is that many times these patients have to go back to a doctor who is p*ss*ed about wasteing precious chair time on this patient again, or the patient has to schedule more time off of work to get to see the doctor, when I have already diagnosed the problem, is this the model that works. It only works because I get all the blame and headaches from the transaction. Maybe this seems like a good arguement for OD's to have despensaries in their offices, but you only exagerate the situation. Refraction should be closer to the supply side of the chain to better serve the public, it makes business sense and it does no harm.
If the arguement is that refractions are a way of getting the public in to see the OD so that they can check the health than why are so many OD's allowing their patients to opt out of a dilation, isn't this where most cases of disease are caught. And if it's not about the money why are OD's working for chains that have quotas on visual field exams?
I truly do appreciate these discussions, becasue it helps to strengthen both sides, I see it in the posts and arguements of the ones who are always ready and willing to discuss it.
Bookmarks