Legally speaking....

[Ory]

Eyeman:

I'm going to ignore the anti-OD sentiment. I just want you to confirm: What do you think of those with a chiropractic, dental, veterinary, naturopathic degree, or those with a PhD? Are they doctors?

[chip anderson]

Let it Go! The three O's will never learn to love each other as long as they compete with each other. Especially when many in each group seem to be bent on the complete and utter distruction of the other.

Chip

[optical maven]

I think the fundamental difference as to how opticians or optometrists view these matters goes back to education. Opticians are trained as a trade in a community college setting and are trained to do tasks, while optometrists are trained at a university and understand the whole functioning of eye and visual system at a much more indepth level. This is not elitism, but fact. This is true whether looking at engineering or computer science or accounting education at a college or a university. Therefore the optician views refracting as another task, like any technician might, where optometrists use refracting as part of an overall understanding of the eye and visual system. It is hard to understand what you don't understand.

[eyemanflying]

Eyeman:

I'm going to ignore the anti-OD sentiment. I just want you to confirm: What do you think of those with a chiropractic, dental, veterinary, naturopathic degree, or those with a PhD? Are they doctors?

PhD is fine, again they earned it. All the rest are the same as OD.

[LandLord]

I think the fundamental difference as to how opticians or optometrists view these matters goes back to education. Opticians are trained as a trade in a community college setting and are trained to do tasks, while optometrists are trained at a university and understand the whole functioning of eye and visual system at a much more indepth level. This is not elitism, but fact. This is true whether looking at engineering or computer science or accounting education at a college or a university. Therefore the optician views refracting as another task, like any technician might, where optometrists use refracting as part of an overall understanding of the eye and visual system. It is hard to understand what you don't understand.

I think you're partially correct. An optometrist may have a deeper understanding of the role a refraction plays in the overall health of the eye. But an optician has a better understanding of how a refraction affects a patients real-world visual experience.

Opticians routinely listen to verbal descriptions by patients of their visual quality, which is a direct result of the refraction. Optometrists routinely refer adaptation problems back to opticians without a real understanding of the root cause. Instead, they find some slight error in the glasses and tell patients that is the cause of their blurry vision -- ie: the PD is off by 2mm. This gets the patient out of the office and allows the optometrist to blame the optician. In reality, it's usually something completely different. Therefore, optometrists view refraction as a health screening tool, while opticians see refraction as a tool to correct refractive errors.

By the way, I don't take offense to the term "technician" but it is inaccurate.

A technician follows a routine set of tasks that may require skills but no diagnostic or clinical judgement. Technicians facilitate a predetermined result.

A practitioner, first gathers data, then applies clinical judgement to determine a course of action. Practitioners solve a need or problem.

Both optometrists and opticians perform some routine technical tasks, and both use clinical judgement to solve problems. Both are practitioners.

[AdmiralKnight]

I don't think anyone should take offence to the term "technician", after all, the word Optician means Optical Technician. Though, I am a bit confused at Maven's use of the word "tasks". I won't argue that generally speaking, OD's have a much more in-depth understanding of the eye as a whole. That's fine. However, when someone comes in wanting a refraction, they are infact, looking for someone to preform a "task". Not everyone who comes in for a general eye exam needs, or even necessairily wants a medical exam. No one here is suggesting that we get rid of medical exams. It's more about giving the populance more options.

[LandLord]

I don't think anyone should take offence to the term "technician", after all, the word Optician means Optical Technician. Though, I am a bit confused at Maven's use of the word "tasks". I won't argue that generally speaking, OD's have a much more in-depth understanding of the eye as a whole. That's fine. However, when someone comes in wanting a refraction, they are infact, looking for someone to preform a "task". Not everyone who comes in for a general eye exam needs, or even necessairily wants a medical exam. No one here is suggesting that we get rid of medical exams. It's more about giving the populance more options.

Optician = optical technician? Are you sure?

Does that mean physician = physical technician?

[AdmiralKnight]

That's the definition I was thought, if wrong, I'll retract it. I still don't think it's an insult though :)

[optical maven]

I didn't write about education with an intention to insult anyone. However I do believe there is a fundamental difference between opticianry and optometry because of our educational differences. My job as an optometrist is to establish that the ocular system is normal. Is the refractive error noted normal? Is the change in the refractive error normal? Could there be underlying reasons for the refractive error being what it is? Is there a binocular impact if the refractive error is changed? Refracting in itself is not the issue. That's why we use autorefractors. Although retinoscopy does give a view of the cornea which sometimes hints at corneal distortions. The incidence of any abnormality may be small, but for the person with the problem the incidence is 100%.

[chip anderson]

Would retinoscopy reveal corneal irreguarity that keratometry and slit-lamp fail to show?

Chip

[optical maven]

Keratometry, slit lamp, retinoscopy, corneal topography all are used to diagnose corneal irregularities. Retinoscopy is just a quick tool to help when used in a general examination.

[LandLord]

I do believe there is a fundamental difference between opticianry and optometry because of our educational differences.

The fundamental difference that you speak of is in the practice, not the education. Everyone acknowledges that optometrists have more eye education than opticians, and ophthalmologists have more than optometrists. The amount of education does not determine if one is a technician or practitioner. The practice itself does that.

My job as an optometrist is to establish that the ocular system is normal. Is the refractive error noted normal? Is the change in the refractive error normal? Could there be underlying reasons for the refractive error being what it is? Is there a binocular impact if the refractive error is changed? Refracting in itself is not the issue. That's why we use autorefractors. Although retinoscopy blah blah blah...

Opticians understand conceptually what your job is, but they (by definition) are not interested in all of the details. They are interested in one aspect only. Refraction. Just like optometrists (by definition) are not interested in eye surgery.

[cityconnection]

Depends on whether the "Doctor's" office is in business to make money or help his patients. If the former it's his duty to make it as difficult as possible for Rx's to be filled anywhere except his office. If the latter it's his duty to make it as easy as possible.
I run into this all the time even in "friendly" doctor's office the girls (yes all girls) act like they are too stupid to read and Rx without asking the doctor, who of course is not instantly available. Or if it were some deep dark secret that required a physicians authorization.

This of course is so much BS. Yesterday I had a "friendly" doctor'/s office fax me an Rx (1 month old) with "VOID" all over the background.

Chiip

We have an OD in the area that does the same thing. He also gives out the wrong RX on purpose. I now tell my customers who come from him that they should be aware that he occasionally makes spelling mistakes on his RXs and we wont redo the lenses for free. The people usually get a second RX from another doctor and bring the correct RX. Needless to say the "bad" doctor also dispenses...:finger:

[fjpod]

you guys crack me up

[LandLord]

I've heard the bad doctor myth many times but never actually witnessed it.

[chip anderson]

In thier defense, we must have 75 O.D,'s and 50 OMD's in our area and we have only one that I know for sure intentionally screws up the Rx if the patient leaves his dispensary with Rx. Maybe a few others over the years, and a couple that that appeareantly can't seem to get them right despite auto-refractors, techs and O.D. and OMD's on staff.
But for the most part I think they are doing the best they can.

Chip

[cityconnection]

In thier defense, we must have 75 O.D,'s and 50 OMD's in our area and we have only one that I know for sure intentionally screws up the Rx if the patient leaves his dispensary with Rx. Maybe a few others over the years, and a couple that that appeareantly can't seem to get them right despite auto-refractors, techs and O.D. and OMD's on staff.
But for the most part I think they are doing the best they can.

Chip

Dont get me wrong, I have got Rxs and phone calls from O.D. that are more than helpful at getting the correct rx. It's just this one guy that is making an **** out of himself. He isnt helping anyone, including his own practice!