An OD is not an MD!! All my MD friends agree with me. Od's for years have been overstepping their scope of practice. If you want to be an Ophthalmogist go get the necessary education!Originally Posted by cinders831
Yes (unequivocally, with no supervision or restrictions)- with formal training
Yes (with no supervision, but with restrictions as to whom can be seen)
Yes (with supervision)
No (because there is no need for Opticians to refract)
No (Opticians are not capable of refracting)
An OD is not an MD!! All my MD friends agree with me. Od's for years have been overstepping their scope of practice. If you want to be an Ophthalmogist go get the necessary education!
I have made a statement before many time............................
An opthahlologist is a qualified doctor specialised in eye medicine and surgery. Years of learning and studying and specializing. The learning part of refraction is very a very small part of this specialised education.
An Optometrist takes a few years to learn his profession and the principal subject is refraction.
Conclusion:
For sick eyes and surgery ========= Opthalmologist
Test eyes for optical improvement and vision ========= Optometrist
OD's CAN REFRACT BUT NOT SELL eyeglasses. Conflict of interest!
Opticians specialize in optical dispensing.
OD's in refraction.
Md's im medicine and surgery!
If only each of the 3O's would stick to their speciality!
35oldguy
The regulations here are different. Most OD's here receive a ten week course. Why do you need a four year education. An OD is not an MD.[/QUOTE]
An MD is not an OD, whats the point?
Judy Canty
I understand what you're saying. But could the outcome have changed if the full weight of nationally organized Opticianry descended on Albany? That's where we lose out.[/QUOTE]
Hindsight in history is always 20/20. Remember history is always written by the victorious and usually has there spin on it. We tried and were rebuffed by the BIG boys who yield lots of money and where there is money there is power and that is what we ran into. Could it have been changed? Maybe!;)
Opticians should be able to refract. Lots of doctors use their lesser skilled employees to refract all the time. The Dr. monitor the results and then signs off on the RX. (Is this the reason there are so many remakes. No, there are plenty of doctors out there who don't know how to refract either.)
Ophthalmalogoists spend a lot of time educating themeselves to become doctors.
A optometrist spends ten weeks to learn what an MD does in ten years. But if an optician takes ten weeks to learn how to refract wow they just are not qualified.... Double standards exist in our professions!!
Wrong.......................................
A medical Doctor takes year to become an opthalmologist but the training for refractions is only a couple of month.
An optometrist takes a three course course at the university with the main subject being refraction. No take your own conclusions.
OD's now in the USA are doing follow-up caRE AFTER AN md DOES EYE SURGERY. In some instances they are doing theraputic drugs. This they learn in about ten weeks. An eye refraction is a very simple test. That is why on another post someone said that the help actually do the exam and it is signed by the doctor.
That is why opticians need to be educated properly to perform what the OD's do not want to do anymore because it is boring!!!!!!!!
The OD's make more money doing the work that took them ten weeks to learn!! They want to make the same money that a MD took ten years to learn!!
Is'nt it alway about money?
Maybe Guatemala has a ten-week optometry program but in Ontario, an optometrist requires a bachelor of science and three years of optometry school for a total of 6 years. They provide primary eyecare. How are they overstepping their scope of practice?
Jason may have forgotten to mention that the pharmacology courses taught are the same for optometry as they are for medical schools. hj
"Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
Lord Byron
Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
www.capecodphotoalbum.com
35oldguy:
Ophthalmalogoists spend a lot of time educating themeselves to become doctors.
A optometrist spends ten weeks to learn what an MD does in ten years. But if an optician takes ten weeks to learn how to refract wow they just are not qualified.... Double standards exist in our professions!![/QUOTE]
I don't know where you got your requirements for Optometrists but your a little off base. Case in point at Indiana University:
The Doctor of Optometry (O.D.) degree is offered by the IU School of Optometry. It requires fulfillment of a bachelor's degree (before or after enrollment in the O.D. program), including all preoptometry requirements and satisfactory completion of the four-year professional curriculum. Holders of this degree are eligible to apply for examinations for licensure by state optometry boards throughout the nation.
If I have not lost all my fingers that constitutes a total of 8 years training. Your MD gets an additional 2 or possible 3 years of residency where he is in training normally at a hospital. Your anology is inane and does not hold up! Reconsider!:hammer:
35oldguy:
OD's now in the USA are doing follow-up caRE AFTER AN md DOES EYE SURGERY. In some instances they are doing theraputic drugs. This they learn in about ten weeks. An eye refraction is a very simple test. That is why on another post someone said that the help actually do the exam and it is signed by the doctor.
That is why opticians need to be educated properly to perform what the OD's do not want to do anymore because it is boring!!!!!!!!
The OD's make more money doing the work that took them ten weeks to learn!! They want to make the same money that a MD took ten years to learn!!
Is'nt it alway about money?[/QUOTE]
Maybe 35oldguy really is really old. I had an old time Optomtrist tell me at one time it was only 4 years for an optometry program with one additional year making it five total, but that was almost 50 years ago. But to say an MD does in 10 years what an OD does in ten weeks is just, simple minded. I have met more than one Optomtrist that could out refract any MD any day of of the week. Most are TPA certified and the only thing they can't do is operate. So what is 35oldguy's point?:hammer:
Politically Guatemala is a very unstable country. Its governemnt changes every four years. There is a lot of corruption. Canada I am sure is a modern country. Guatemala every time a corrupt government gets in power it takes ten years to get back to where they started from. That is why so many VOSH teams used to come to Guatemala to help the poor. I did it not to blow my own horn since 1983.
Of course I was talking about the USA in this last post. OD's have been overstepping their scope of practice for years and the MD's are mad about it. That is why many are getting back into the dispensing business.
QUOTE=Jason Carruthers]Maybe Guatemala has a ten-week optometry program but in Ontario, an optometrist requires a bachelor of science and three years of optometry school for a total of 6 years. They provide primary eyecare. How are they overstepping their scope of practice?[/QUOTE]
most likely older than the person of this post I would think that the new generation problably have all the answers. Before 1990 there were a lot of optometrists paying for a ten week course so the could do what a ophthalmologist did by going to school ten years instead of ten weeks. I am of talking about prescribing RX drugs not lenses. Nothing against any optometrist for they are qualified to do what they do as long as they stay within their scope of practice. But if an optician wants to take the refraction course iin ten weeks they suddenly do not agree!!
QUOTE=jediron1]35oldguy:
Ophthalmalogoists spend a lot of time educating themeselves to become doctors.
A optometrist spends ten weeks to learn what an MD does in ten years. But if an optician takes ten weeks to learn how to refract wow they just are not qualified.... Double standards exist in our professions!![/QUOTE]
I don't know where you got your requirements for Optometrists but your a little off base. Case in point at Indiana University:
The Doctor of Optometry (O.D.) degree is offered by the IU School of Optometry. It requires fulfillment of a bachelor's degree (before or after enrollment in the O.D. program), including all preoptometry requirements and satisfactory completion of the four-year professional curriculum. Holders of this degree are eligible to apply for examinations for licensure by state optometry boards throughout the nation.
If I have not lost all my fingers that constitutes a total of 8 years training. Your MD gets an additional 2 or possible 3 years of residency where he is in training normally at a hospital. Your anology is inane and does not hold up! Reconsider!:hammer: [/QUOTE]
Why all the double talk? We asked a simple question should we not expect a simple answer? Instead we get all this double talk of ten week courses. We get the point that you believe Optometrist took only a ten weeker where as the mighty MD took ten years. Were those years that were spent learning by our august MD's, what an OD did in weeks? If so they wasted a lot of time in school!:hammer: Is this 35oldguy for real?
Your own Alma Mater has a 4 year Doctor of Optometry program. And if I'm reading the course descriptions correctly, out of 163 credits over 4 years, 12 of those are specifically geared towards pharmacology and 13 towards pathology/disease diagnosis and management (the application of the pharmacology knowledge). I don't know how the credits translate into lecture and lab hours, but it seems to me that it would be more than 10 weeks. And I doubt that MDs are spending 10 years studying solely pharmacology. If you're going to continue with this "10 weeks vs. 10 years" argument, clarify for everyone what the 10 weeks and what the 10 years refer to.
(jediron1, I think 35oldguy is refering to just TPA certification on its own)
Last edited by mlm; 05-04-2005 at 12:54 AM. Reason: more clarification needed
US optics.........3rd world country style......boring
This thread is getting boring...........................
Lets be straight forward, in the USA at least half the opticians are NOT regulated. Therefore no education needed, at least in the opticians sector.
Today a............garbage collector emtying grbage cans into the garbage truck............tomorrow you can own and operate an optical store in half the country and want to talk about refracting which other optical professionals take years to do.
Before there is no order arranged by federal legislators, which probably will never happen, optics in the USA qill be equivalent to a 3rd world country where education is given by big corporation advertising.........and that is why they prosper so well.
mlm thanks for the imput. 35oldguy was or seemed to be rambling on but maybe that is because he is, OLD. ( no disrepect meant to any old guy because I m considered old myself and I was only using the term 35oldguy used which is old.)
But he does seemed to be fixated on this notion of 10 weeks versus 10 years,
but for the life of me I don't see it or can I figure it out. Maybe in his mind it was 10 weeks? If it was for TPA he should have come right out and said it.
:hammer:
Chris good cover as always you come through in the bottom of the ninth with a hit, good job!
Last edited by jediron1; 05-04-2005 at 07:43 AM.
jediron: When you're old, 10 weeks can seem like 10 years!
Good point!
and have your FUN!!! I am not OLD!! I wonder just how serious you Canadians are! Life must be a real bore to you!! Of course in Canada opticians are well respected or not becasue they have been recognized as being a profession!
As you said 50% of the opticians in the USA can be garbage collectors one day and opticians the next. How sad that you would belittle and compare yourself in this way!!! Nice to know that no disrepect was intended. Likewise!
QUOTE=jediron1]mlm thanks for the imput. 35oldguy was or seemed to be rambling on but maybe that is because he is, OLD. ( no disrepect meant to any old guy because I m considered old myself and I was only using the term 35oldguy used which is old.)
But he does seemed to be fixated on this notion of 10 weeks versus 10 years,
but for the life of me I don't see it or can I figure it out. Maybe in his mind it was 10 weeks? If it was for TPA he should have come right out and said it.
:hammer:
Chris good cover as always you come through in the bottom of the ninth with a hit, good job!
Opticians are more than equipped to refract, Opticians are the working horse and foundation of the 3 O's. Opticians are currently refracting now. Both the Ophthamologist and the Optometrist look for the help of the Optician when prescribing eyewear. We bend light an maneuver prescriptions to accomodate patients. Opticians are the drive to industry. If laws are passed to make Opticians refract, the industry would double in sales. Opticians refract in every part of the world except for the USA. Why is that? It is because Opticians are not united. Let us unite. With the new computer age, communication is not a problem. We can do this.
Old thread but I did find a historically inaccurate depiction of the progression of our professions:
Occulists were medically trained without surgical training aroudn the turn of the century, optometrists were opticians who raised the bar and were originally called refracting opticians. I have documentation if anyone feels they can refute this. Occulists as a profession died off since their was no need for their profession. In todays scenario an optometrist performs the same functions of a 100 year + defunct postion the occulist, the reason that the profession thrives while occulists haven't is legislation and the ability to prevent anyone from practicing "Optometry" or "Refraction". This isn't mean to ruffle feathers it's facts and trends from the past. The reason refraction will never be in teh independent scope of optciasn is that it jepordizes the profession of Optometry to do so, any other reason would simply be a fallacy.The OD's defined their own trade (at the time) and legislated (with grandfathering) to define thier title as Optometrists. Opticians began as jewlers. Optometrists as Occulists that peddled corrective eyewear.
Harry, not trying to start an arguement, but so much of what you said is opinion, not fact. I will just leave it alone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks