I was joking! Why, do you extend your pinky when you drink beer?Originally Posted by kws6000
I was joking! Why, do you extend your pinky when you drink beer?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
And yet we have about 32 unlicensed states, due in a large part to OD opposition. I'm confused! What would most OD's prefer?? Properly trained and educated opticians, or cheap off the street help?I see enough cl related pathology due to contact lens fitting opticians fitting anybody with an rx and some money to make me cringe at the thought of unregulated,unqualified opticians
Not a cheap shot, just a legitimate question.
Labatt's Blue? I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about real beer.
I think where the problems come up is that there are so many opticians that want to turn the profession into mini-doctors completely without training. There have been a few that have made the correlation with optometry and ophthalmology, but that couldn't be more different. ODs go to school for 4 years learning about the eye and it's relation to systemic conditions...4 years. That's a long time and during that time we're tested by every entity known to man including some state tests that were designed in part with physician "assistance". It's not a matter of whether or not we're qualified, that can't really be disputed by any reasonable person.
There is also the problem with necessity. There is just no demand that would require the revamping of your entire industry to create yet another type of eyecare provider. The waters are muddy enough as it is (ESPECIALLY in Texas - with the 3 levels of optometrist which I find completely misleading to the public). The public ALREADY thinks that the refraction is the meat of an eye exam and the rest is just annoying despite the pathology found and treated. The education, cost, legislation and most importantly REGULATION to make this viable and NOT a public health hazard is just staggering when it's just not needed for anybody but the opticians.
71, I don't think you answered obx's question. Even dog groomers in some states have to have a licence. Do you think the public is well served by having absolutely no qualification ( in some states) to be an optician? In
Texas, as an example, there is no barrier from being a burger flipper Monday and calling yourself an optician Tuesday.
"Optician" is a broad generalization. Opticians can be dispensing opticians, fabricating opticians, instructor opticians even frame stylist call themselves opticians. Each has their own level of importance and skill sets. Just as there are differing levels of OD's, there are differing levels of opticianry. Some of us have A.S. degrees, some have demostrated and achived Master Optician status ( and thats not just given to you, I would be willing to bet you the majority of all practicing OD's could not achieve that status with out much more study than given in OD school).
A "license" in that sense is not what you're talking about. A dog groomer applies with the state and requires no background education to achieve it. In no way does the public equate dog grooming with a veterinary examination so there is no public confusion there. This is completely different than refracting or licensed opticians. ODs are the recognized experts in optics (whether or not it's valid is debatable, I'll agree with you there), yet when it comes up opticians want to be completely independent. Why? Because they say so. THIS is what most ODs are against.
You're still evading the question....
Should an optician be required to have demostrated at least basic optical ability to practice opticianry?
I feel both excited and cheated. . . . .
that I am in the last 10 year window for retirement. That's not a window that's going to change what I do or how I'm compensated. Despite the mud slinging there are 2 groups very passionate about what it is they do. That in itself is very gratifiying to me. It means that the profession I love is in good hands.
It was never the anatomy and physiology that excited me. For me it was the excitement of fabrication. Being able to hold an Rx in one hand, a frame in the other, being able to accurately envision the finished product and then making that vision come true. That coupled with the desire to control cost of goods and always increase profitability has led me through my career. That being said, I will contribute both time and money for Opticians right to refract. Education is the key. One of the things I truly love about this business is that it is ever evolving. Nothing remains the same. There's always new products, new procedures and just when you think it can't get any better, it does! I don't expect our roles not to change as well.
I am proud to be an Optician. I am proud of the energy so many of you are expending. We need to learn from the OD's about organization. The AOA sends out an email and thousands call their congressman or write checks or volunteer to promote something. They have strong state and national organizations. If the state and national organizatins agree about something, you can bet that every OD worth their salt is going to close ranks and move forward, regardless of whether they personally agree with it. They have a sense of betterment of their slice of the optical pie and they have done well for themselves.
Living in Texas is very gratifying because we have a strong state association. I believe they have my best interest at heart, so whether I agree with them or not I will close ranks and move forward. We are very diverse in our opinions, but why pick everything to death? We do control our own destiny which is a very cool thing to realize. I can see where Opticians are already moving from the molotov tossing stage to real action. There are leaders and educators on the national level that are starting to make real gains.
Thank you to those of you who are trying to make a difference. You know who you are. This rounds for you!!
:cheers::cheers::cheers:
Days where my gratitude exceed my expectations are very good days!
I'm not evading the question, I'm practicing conflict avoidance. Your analogy of a dog grooming license is flawed because you're not talking about a license to practice business, you're talking about a certificate of competency.
I'll answer your question with a question. To whom?
I agree that opticians should have to demonstrate competency, but where all of the problems arise is that there is no agreement as to whom should that competency be demonstrated AND that competency shouldn't be a spring board to changing from a dispensing/fabricating profession to a prescribing profession.
You guys think that it's all about money for us, but the truth is that a very good optician can more than generate the extra $6-10 per hour difference in revenue.
Eyedoc71:
Generating it is one thing. Being allowed to keep it instead of the prescriber keeping it is another.
Chip
Alright, you feel opticians should have to demonstrate competency. So you wouldn't oppose opticians to be required in Texas to pass certification tests, both writen and practical like in Florida and a few other states? In other words, you wouldn't fight required lisensure for opticians?
Or are you going to tote the line that it's not needed?
You're trying to pigeonhole me counselor. There are a lot of factors that would determine my support or opposition. I would need to read the law proposed before I will just throw out blanket support for "licensure". Often times, there is considerably more in those propositions than just "taking tests". Who will be the licensing authority? Who will administer the tests? What broader issues does the law open up with the wording? It's always the autonomy and expansion that creates the largest points of opposition. One of my questions is what percentage of dispensing opticians are currently licensed? Is this a small minority standing on a soap box? I certainly think that I'm qualified to determine if an optician (licensed or not) is competent enough to work in my office without the necessity of a licensing board.
Would the opticians be willing to be under the authority of the optometry board in exchange for such licensing?
Would Optometry be willing to be under the authority of a board of medicine in exchange for hospital priviledges? MD supervise MD's, OD's supervise OD's and Opticians supervise Opticians. We perform different and necessary functions in the field of eye care. This is still nothing more than a turf battle. This discussion has not improved the relationship between the professions, nor is it likely to. We still adamantly refuse to grant respect to each other for our respective bodies of knowledge and until that happens, we will continue to rage against each other.
Simple :
Set up a board and have them approve licensing guidlines, prepares such tests as needed. Board should consist of 5 journeymen opticians of at least 10 years experience, 1 board certified ophthalmologists, and 1 board certified optometrist. Yes, you do see a pattern here, the opticians would be in charge of thier own board and licensing but would have input from both bodies of prescribers.
Now, what's the problem with this? I'm sure you feel O.D.'s should be in charge of the board. Which would fine if Opticians were in charge of the optometry board (after all there have been opticians a lot longer than there have been O.D.'s, right? So the opticians must be the better trained and more knowledgable according to O.D. logic.) I mean after all contact lenses were first made, fitted, designed and manufactured by opticians not O.D.'s so why should you be the ones to fit them now?
Seriously, the problem is so simple when you take the power struggles out of it that it could be done in a week-end.
As long as one branch wants authority over the other, the fight is lost by both sides. And of course O.D.'s and O.M.D.'s will never agree to having thier own help licensed and regulated by opticians, even if the help is called an "optician." Big boxes will throw thier conciderable weight and finances to oppose this.
Chip
ODs would have to submit to the authority of MDs in a hospital setting, but that's because they would be dealing with medical boards and surgery which is the OMD area of expertise. This isn't a turf battle, this is professions acknowledging their place in the strata. OMDs are primarily surgeons whose area of specialty and training is surgery and exotic eye disease. ODs are primary and secondary care providers specializing in optics, vision correcting devices and medical management of eye disease. Opticians are professional dispensers and fabricators that take a doctors work to fruition. It only makes sense that ODs that are involved in surgery should be under medical authority just as OPs should be under ODs/OMDs as the prescribers. It has nothing to do with respect for your knowledge.
Opticians have always been independent. Also in the previous post you stated that no one can dey the education that an OD recieves and I agree with that whole heartedly I do, but as you profession starts to expand your scope and certain things get condensed it creates a need for ancilliary staff to pick up those areas an maybe even specialize in those areas. I know a lot of OD's that could smoke the competition in optics but that seems to be changing. Also righ tnow the guy down the road that just got hired yesterday and threw on a lab coat is refered to as an optician, I have spent almost 10 years in this industry with OJT, I just finished a course, I am in the process of attaining the highest certifications in our industry and liek obxeyeguy stated it's not quick or easy but yet I am still grouped into the same occupation as the guy downt he road swinging his PD stick.
Ultimately the patient does suffer, how many news pieces have been done just this year on shoody eyeglasses? People not recieveing the products that they paid for? People getting bum eyewear online? That's gotta get to you too. I see refraction in the future, but I see everything you and your peers mentioned as being potential roadblocks and although I would like to say that the opposition recieved on refraction is unwarranted at this point in time it's not. First we as opticians need to clean house, if you don't have an education get it, if you don't have licensure, get it, if you don't have a way to differentiate between a frame stylist and optician create it. Lot's of things we as profession need to do before we expand anything, these things should be things you surely agree with, right?
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
This could possibly be the dumbest post I've read. Opticians should be in charge of the optometry board based on time existed?Please tell me that's the point you're trying to make (I realize it was an example, but it's so silly that it's impossible to read it with a straight face). There is that tiny little hiccup of the complete lack of training and education on your part. :hammer:
If the OD and OMD have no authority only input, why even bother putting them there? I would be willing to endorse having equal ODs and OPs (I really don't see the need for OMDs to be involved given their lack of optical training), but as figureheads? I hate to throw a monkey wrench in your week-end plan, but give me a break.
MD's fought tooth and nail to prevent TPA education and legislation for OD's.
What then, if not lack of respect or loss of turf, is driving this great fear of a college-educated and regulated Optician?
I'm not trying to be combative here, but I am trying to understand why organized Optometry is so opposed to organized, educated and regulated Opticianry. Expanding the scope of Opticianry is really not an issue until college-level education and state-wide regulations are in place. These are the same battles that Optometry fought and won more than 100 years ago. If it was worth the fight then, it's worth the fight now.
Last edited by Judy Canty; 06-07-2008 at 12:23 PM.
And why the h*ll are some opticians fighting it?:angry:
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
Probably, fear of change in the status quo.
I thought this would be obvious even to O.D.'s that since we were thier fathers, they should not have authority over us. Trying to point out that there is no reason that O.D.'s or O.M.D.'s should have authority over us over that of making sure thier Rx's are properly filled (which they already have, or at least used to before WM and mail order), and the ability to make non-economicly motiviated recommendations (as they do with drug stores).
Now why should they be on the board at all if they don't "control" it? Simple: To have input and advise (smart as us journeymen opticians is we don't know everything, and don't see everything from the prescribers (those that are not econmicly motivated that is) point of view. Do not O.D.'s have a few OMD members on thier "ruling bodies?" Don't O.M.D.'s have nurses and administrators that are not physicians on thier oversight committes?
In fact it might not even hurt to have a few non optical people on the board. But if it is to establish what opticians should be, it should be a majority of opticians.
Obviously O.D.'s, O.M.D.'s, and various groups of opticians have differing views of ethics (those that still understand the word), competence and honor are. O.D.'s appearently set thier standards (not O.M.D.'s) Physicians and O.M.D.'s set thier standards for these things, why should not Opticians do the same?
It would (and sometimes is the case, and often opposed for this reason) be very easy for an O.D. controlled board, or even one with a majority of
O.D.'s and Merchant OMD's to regulate everything that was profitable as being beyond the scope of independent opticians. In fact I am sure this is what you would submit as the basis of such boards.
Chip
Funny. Approximately in the early 1950's or 60's, OPTOMETRISTS WERE GRANDFATHERED IN. My local OD was working at a funeral home. He had no formal education in the field. He started out with an antigue set of trial lenses that he adapted to a persons eyes. Before him was the optician who at that time were the experts in the field. Now over 50 years later the OD wants all the gravy. OD's are not experts in the field of opticianry. They should do every thing in their power to educate all opticians,, get them licensed and start working together to help people who need eyecare. The funny part of it is always about money! When eyeglasses were selling for $29.95 a pair the doctor did not care. Now with all the advanced products and the charges that the consumer have to pay it really is getting ridiculous!
My brother and his wife just paid $1200 for 2 pair of progressives. The Rx on his was OD Pl OS Pl +2.00 Add in policarbonate. Hers OD -2.00 OS -250 with a +200 add in the same. He bought them from his OD friend who he said gave him a big discount. I wonder what he would have paid at Sears or an independent optician if the doctor would have gave him his RX to shop around for the best price and materials? It is all about money is it not?
My apologies,for taking this the wrong way. And no .I dont extend my pinky and I usually drink from the beer bottle.
Things are obviously different in the usa.Up here we havent as a group tried to interfere with optician licensing .I would prefer properly trained opticians.
71, you gotta be the spokesman for TOAPAC. and if you aren't, you should be!
( for those wondering...Texas Optometric Association Political Action Committee)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks