They're at it again

[HarryChiling]

Looks like OD's in California feel that certain surgical procedures, intravenous injections, and x-rays shoudl be part of there scope. What say optiboarders?

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...ed_asm_v92.pdf

[chip anderson]

Why not just require four years of medical school to be an O.D.?.

Chip

[fjpod]

Just another example of a thread started to elicit optician led bias against another profession...on the Premier Online Community for Eyecare Professionals...(my foot).

Harry, you should know better.

Mods...do us all a favor and shut it down.

[renee1111]

Just another example of a thread started to elicit optician led bias against another profession...on the Premier Online Community for Eyecare Professionals...(my foot).

Harry, you should know better.

Mods...do us all a favor and shut it down.

Shut it down? Why? What about the thread about the ban on refractometry, isn't this along the same lines? Same s*** different pile. I think this could get interesting! :p

[HarryChiling]

Just another example of a thread started to elicit optician led bias against another profession...on the Premier Online Community for Eyecare Professionals...(my foot).

Harry, you should know better.

Mods...do us all a favor and shut it down.

What's wrong with the question, I even made it so that everyone has the opportunity to see what was chosen by whom. It's yes or no or shocked that it's even a consideration. I have over the last few years even heard from optometrists that they would never even dream of surgery and now theirs a bill for it. I would assume then you are for the bill.

It's an ugly topic I know but it warrants discussion. I want to hear all the opinions fro or against it not the reasons why we shouldn't talk about the subject this is america or at least the part of the cyberworld I posted from is america so I thought it was a relevent thought provoking topic and it's a current topic since our legislators are currently hashing out the details.

I notices that, X-rays are something that optomtrists would like to be able to order up. I am not sure why you would need that so maybe a reason why could help enlighten me?

I understand oral flourescein is in there to test for diabetic retinopathy, I would assume that if something is caught your profession is going to want to do something about it, that means lasers next?

Corneal scraping with cultures, I'll give you that one it really doesn't make much sense to be able to prescribe the drugs you prescribe without beign able to determine the condition and cultures will help with that.

Eppilation, I'd say have that pluck out as many as you like I don't get the big deal with that one except maybe a turf war.

Removal of skin tags, come on now that's surgery I don't believe that is anywhere near the scope of an OD.

Shaving of dermal or epidermal lesions, again surgery.

Stromal Micropuncture, surgery just not too deep.

Suture removal, my sister used to remove my stitches all the time when I was a kid even gave me a few I don't see why this would be an issue.

This is a HUGE HUGE bill an as the premier online community it's a great place to see a discussion on this subject.

[chip anderson]

Harry: Unless the MD's I have worked for and with are doing it wrong, it is used topicaly to check contact lens fit, abrashions, ulcers and any sort of tissue breakage.
Now I have never heard of it being given orally (of course there are a lot of things I have not heard of.)
It is given intravienously, for flouriciene angiography of the posterior eye.

X-rays can be used for some conditions affecting the eye, like orbital fractures, foriegn bodies deep in the eye, structural abnormalities in the facial or orbital bones. Can see why an O.D. might want this but even M.D.'s usually send the patient to a hospital or radiology group to take the pictures, interpret the findings and the like. O.D.'s may or may not be able to send the patient to such facilities to have this done. Can't see exactly why they would want to except possibly to find or eliminate a condition that would really need an MD. Of course maybe they want to start some Optometric Plastic Surgery now the the OMD's have Super-Subspecialized into this.

Chip

Chip

[fjpod]

Sorry guys, I'm not taking the bait. A poll that has "Yes", "No", and "Heck no they must have bumped their heads", is not one started in good faith with the intention of professional discourse. And the people who respond to it or try debate it are just showing lack of professionalism.

[HarryChiling]

Harry: Unless the MD's I have worked for and with are doing it wrong, it is used topicaly to check contact lens fit, abrashions, ulcers and any sort of tissue breakage.
Now I have never heard of it being given orally (of course there are a lot of things I have not heard of.)
It is given intravienously, for flouriciene angiography of the posterior eye.

X-rays can be used for some conditions affecting the eye, like orbital fractures, foriegn bodies deep in the eye, structural abnormalities in the facial or orbital bones. Can see why an O.D. might want this but even M.D.'s usually send the patient to a hospital or radiology group to take the pictures, interpret the findings and the like. O.D.'s may or may not be able to send the patient to such facilities to have this done. Can't see exactly why they would want to except possibly to find or eliminate a condition that would really need an MD. Of course maybe they want to start some Optometric Plastic Surgery now the the OMD's have Super-Subspecialized into this.

Chip

Chip

That's kinda the point, a while ago a few OD's on this board were saying even they didn't want surgical procedures, but this law will open up a pandoras box. The more they are able to see, for instance on an X-ray the more likely they will be to convince someone that if they don't personally take care f it it's professional negligence on there part, where does it end?

Sorry guys, I'm not taking the bait. A poll that has "Yes", "No", and "Heck no they must have bumped their heads", is not one started in good faith with the intention of professional discourse. And the people who respond to it or try debate it are just showing lack of professionalism.

And for the last option sure I made the poll so it's biased towards my views that's why I put the "did they bump there heads", becasue that's what I feel. I promise I won't try to mislead people into thinking this poll is fair. :hammer: Here's a suggestion start another one that is biased towards your views, or continue to complain that life isn't fair. This poll was designed to show how things are not fair, for instance your profession is skipping the medical school yet expecting legislators to allow them the same privledges that a medical doctor has. Lets not go into fair and unfair either participate or don't your choice.

[Senorwes1]

I think that ANY eye care professional (OMD, OD, Optician, etc.) should be able to practice his/her profession according to the degree of training completed. There are OMD's that are not particularly good surgeons, just like there are OD's who aren't good refractionists, and CL Fitters who don't know how to select a proper base curve. If you have been properly trained to perform certain procedures or tests, then you should be able to perform them, within reason. Laws need to change with the times. We (the three O's) should all be working together to provide the best vision possible for our patients, whether it be with surgery, medications, glasses, contact lenses or a combination of all of them. There is no reason that an OD or OMD should not be able to order whatever tests (X-ray, flourescein, IV's, etc.) necessary to diagnose or treat a patient with an ocular related condition. I'm not sure that ALL OD's have been trained properly to perform certain surgeries but I do know some that would be excellent surgeons if trained and are certainly capable 100% of performing surgery. I don't understand why OMD's try to limit OD's scope and OD's then try to limit Opticians' scope. It's funny that OMD's use minimally trained techs to perform most of their refractions and OD's restrict their techs to just pretesting. OD's need to expand their scope to be able to delegate certain tasks to trained techs or Opticians like the OMD's do. I think OD's are limiting their own scope because they are worried that Opticians might be "practicing Optometry without a license." I am limited every day by my state optometry laws from performing basic tasks that I am well qualified to do. I feel that I am forgetting a lot of what I have been trained to do because I'm not allowed to use it. It's a shame. I'm thinking of going to work for an OMD because they seem to allow their staff to practice their profession to the full extent of their training and support education more than OD's. Summing it all up, the law should be changed to say that an eye care professional should be able to practice according to his/her training and education. If you haven't been trained to do something, you should not be allowed to do it.

[hcjilson]

Well said Senorwes! ....and right on the money!

[chip anderson]

Senorwest1:

Be very carefull what you wish for. When laws get changed (especially in the South) those with the most numbers and the most money/political influence tend to get what they want. Others get something taken away.

And as you know O.D.'s have a whole lot more money and clout.


Chip

P.S. "Training" and public need/public good have nothing to do with what gets through the legislature.

[NC-OD]

Looks like OD's in California feel that certain surgical procedures, intravenous injections, and x-rays shoudl be part of there scope. What say optiboarders?

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...ed_asm_v92.pdf

Harry, your such a loser. Get a life man.

[fjpod]

Senorwest1:

Be very carefull what you wish for. When laws get changed (especially in the South) those with the most numbers and the most money/political influence tend to get what they want. Others get something taken away.

And as you know O.D.'s have a whole lot more money and clout.


Chip

P.S. "Training" and public need/public good have nothing to do with what gets through the legislature.

So what you are saying is that opticians from the South should get what they want, but optometrists shouldn't. Sounds logical.

BTW, you're supposed to be busy finding ophthalmological literature proving that Castor Oil cures Dry Eye.

[Jacqui]

I voted "No, They must have bumped their heads". Actually I could be persuaded to agree if the bill were amended to give Opticians and NP's the right to do refractions.

[Alvaro Cordova]

Harry, your such a loser. Get a life man.

I can understand that the post may be biased, but there really isn't any need to start calling people names. Anyone who knows Harry knows he is an asset to any practice or optical. Believe me when I say, we need more Harrys in the optical field even if you disagree with him on this point. "Loser" just isn't a good description of him. Just my 2 cents.

[NC-OD]

I can understand that the post may be biased, but there really isn't any need to start calling people names. Anyone who knows Harry knows he is an asset to any practice or optical. Believe me when I say, we need more Harrys in the optical field even if you disagree with him on this point. "Loser" just isn't a good description of him. Just my 2 cents.

Okay, how about 'instigator'. There is a long history. If the shoe fits............

For anyone who feels the need to constantly bash optometry, buck up and apply. After all, any idiot can be an OD according to many of the posts here.

Here's a link to get ya started:
https://www.sco.edu/apply/applications.html

Don't whine about the unfairness of your life. Do what others have done and put forth some hard work.

They need students. No more excuses.

Back to the original post about the California bill. It is simply attempting to get CA up to par with the other 49 states. Anyone familiar with the legislative process knows you ask for more--the other sides asks for less--and you end up somewhere in the middle. All the ODs in CA are trained for all they are asking. The rest is just jumping through hoops.

Dentists are the lucky ones. There are no tooth-MDs so dentists don't have put up with silly legislative battles to allow them to do what they were trained to do.

[Alvaro Cordova]

I think optometrists are generally well educated. The education has been expanding into new areas. In NJ, ODs can now prescribe oral medication. I know what ODs have to go through because I saw what my wife had to go through to earn that degree and pass the examinations. So don't think everyone looks poorly upon optometry (with the obvious exception of other optometrists). Optometrists are NOT stupid/(anyone can do it)/idiots/(whatever other derogatory name you can come up with).

While it isn't your fault, a little understanding can really put the brakes on anger. A lot of opticians are upset with the way organized optometry has expanded its scope of practice. Personally I think it's water under the bridge. One simply can't un-ring the bell, so to speak. If I can relay a story to you. An OD (which my wife works for) I applied to work for asked me why he should pay me what I was asking for, since he could get "anyone" to do my job. Mind you, an optician had not worked there for 3 years. I ended up working at another office. Well, my wife asked me to come work with her, she needed help. The OD payed me what I asked for etc.... begrudgingly. I triple A/R sales, overall sales are up, quality of sales are up, customer service is up, less Rx checks need to be scheduled, patients are happy, inventory is under control, most jobs cut in house, fixed computer and network problems etc... Well, this OD tells me "if it were any other way, you wouldn't be working here." I gave notice. I am almost certain I'm not the only one who has had this experience. So please know that not all opticians hate optometrists, but there needs to be an understanding that some people are not representative of all people.

[HarryChiling]

Okay, how about 'instigator'. There is a long history. If the shoe fits............

For anyone who feels the need to constantly bash optometry, buck up and apply. After all, any idiot can be an OD according to many of the posts here.

Here's a link to get ya started:
https://www.sco.edu/apply/applications.html

Don't whine about the unfairness of your life. Do what others have done and put forth some hard work.

They need students. No more excuses.

Back to the original post about the California bill. It is simply attempting to get CA up to par with the other 49 states. Anyone familiar with the legislative process knows you ask for more--the other sides asks for less--and you end up somewhere in the middle. All the ODs in CA are trained for all they are asking. The rest is just jumping through hoops.

Dentists are the lucky ones. There are no tooth-MDs so dentists don't have put up with silly legislative battles to allow them to do what they were trained to do.

Would it have been fair if I included an option for "Heck yeah rock on you sexy studs"?

I understand you don't like optometry's scope being discussed, to bad it's relevent news and it's beign presented in front of our government, which our tax dollars go towards so it's a topic I feel obligated to discuss and pontificate on. Don't worry the polls votes don't count against the bill.

[NC-OD]

Would it have been fair if I included an option for "Heck yeah rock on you sexy studs"?

I understand you don't like optometry's scope being discussed, to bad it's relevent news and it's beign presented in front of our government, which our tax dollars go towards so it's a topic I feel obligated to discuss and pontificate on. Don't worry the polls votes don't count against the bill.

Whatever you say. But do tell us Harry, you seem to like adding initials behind your name. Why not just go to OD school? It's only 4 years. You'll make $140,000/yr. You already illegally lurk on OD sites. Put your money where your mouth is. I know your a young man. Money is not an issue. They will give anyone loan money.

Give us a good reason why you won't do it.

P.S. Talking about scope of practice is fine. (NC has one of the most advanced scopes or practrice in the country.) Putting forth a 5th grade poll is just plain silly.

P.S.S. No matter what any person thinks they are worth...they are only worth what someone is willing to pay them or how much they can make on their own. This goes for any person with any background and any degree. I say the same thing to my wife---going into teaching knowing you will make $24,000/yr and then whining that you don't make much money is just plain ignorant (she no longer teaches).

[Stonegoat]

I know I'll offend some folks here, but I've said it before....don't blame others for your situation. I always feel that the opticians on this site are embittered towards ODs for whatever reason. Is is because, on average, ODs make more $$? Or have more "prestige"?? What is it?

The road to become an OD is pretty long, but well worth it, in my opinion. If you are an optician who wants to have what ODs have, then go and get it. Become an OD.

If you don't want to become an OD, but feel underappreciated or underpaid, or whatever, as an optician...then get out of eye care completely.

Harry....If you could be an optometrist tomorrow, without the work involved to get there, would you become one? Or would you stay an optician? Seriously..

[hcjilson]

I have edited this poll in order to remove an option that was inflamatory and may have caused some of the vitriol noted above. Feel free to continue this discussion while staying on the subject at hand. If this thread escalates into a shouting match it will be closed forthwith.
harry jilson

[icyou]

Same conversation... shoe on the other foot??

I know I'll offend some folks here, but I've said it before....don't blame others for your situation. I always feel that the OD's on this site are embittered towards OMDs for whatever reason. Is is because, on average, OMDs make more $$? Or have more "prestige"?? What is it?

The road to become an OMD is pretty long, but well worth it, in my opinion. If you are an OD who wants to have what OMDs have, then go and get it. Become an OMD.

If you don't want to become an OMD, but feel underappreciated or underpaid, or whatever, as an OD...then get out of eye care completely.

STONEGOAT....If you could be an OMD tomorrow, without the work involved to get there, would you become one? Or would you stay an OD? Seriously.

..(large print is my addition/substitution..not stonegoats original quote)

In all seriousness.. don't we all want to learn and do more?

[NC-OD]

Same conversation... shoe on the other foot??


..(large print is my addition/substitution..not stonegoats original quote)

In all seriousness.. don't we all want to learn and do more?

Big difference. ODs don't go on websites and constantly bash OMDs. Just doesn't happen like it does here...............CONSTANTLY.

We mind our own business and only seek to be able to do the work we paid lots of money to be trained to perform.

Opticians can pretend that 'the man' is holding them down but it's all excuses. Form an organization, make a 4-yr college degree a prerequisite for an opticanary degree and include a heavy dose of refraction in the program. Take it to the legislature and you'll likely get want you want. If you can't get that organized, don't blame others.

Trying to constantly bash others does nothing for yourself.....just makes you run around in circles.

[HarryChiling]

So the poll gets to change, becasue a few feel they can moan loud enough and cry foul ball enough that it changes. Did any of those crying foul ball even articipate in the poll? How about after the moderators changed the poll to accomadate them? Here's one good reason why I don't want to be an OD, your job stinks IMO. Why is everyone changeing the subject from a bill where optometryis trying to gain surgical privledges, does anyone understand the repercusions of a bill like this?

This thread is about a bill that is being discussed and could possibly become law, the things that are in this bill are absurd, want to perform surgery go to med school?

Isn't that wat I am told in almost every thread where I post anythign about optometry? Has anyone ever heard me say I would want to perform any of the duties includeing refraction? I think we should be allowed but I wouldn't want to be th gy oing it personally. This is another childish cry baby way of shuttign a thread down or changingit's content with whining and general nonsensical posts because I ruffled a few feathers, it's freakin controversial as a topic I get it, but it's alos my field to discuss.

Harry, your such a loser. Get a life man.

You already illegally lurk on OD sites.

Real freaking professional way to go, where shoul I mail your award for best put down of the year, oh wait never mind I'll just check the rolodex. You mean those sites where you and your croonies illegally conspire to harras others? Illegal, sue me with your $140K a year, it's a forum and the things discussed there would probably incriminate you and your profession more than any damage you would do to me and that's if you can manage to get a judgement. Oh maybe that's next forget about going to law school maybe your next bill can include that as well, of course any law pertaining to things that people can see like contracts and everything.

Harry....If you could be an optometrist tomorrow, without the work involved to get there, would you become one? Or would you stay an optician? Seriously..

I love what I do and hate what it's become, no I wouldn't want to an optometrists, the work sucks IMO the power to change this field I would gladly take. If some of you spent half as much time trying to make good of this profession you wouldn't seee me as your enemy, you wouldn't see this post the way you do.

I think that ANY eye care professional (OMD, OD, Optician, etc.) should be able to practice his/her profession according to the degree of training completed.

That was probably the most relevent thing that came of this post and my opinion would be that a system that worked would be one that offered brigeing programs so that instead of all OD's the good, the bad, and the ugly that some would eventually arn enough credits or education to becoem an OMD. At the rate the profession of optometry is going their will be no ophthalmology and they are a much better eye care professional IMO than OD or optician. So far nt he US yu go to school to be an optician for 2 years and you have to start all ver to be an OD even though some schools offer both programs with overlapping courses. :hammer:OD's go to school for 4 years post grad and non of that means squat if you want to be an OMD you would have to start over again.

[HarryChiling]

Harry, your such a loser. Get a life man.

BTW, why don't you remove this before I cry like a baby that it's not fair.;)

You already illegally lurk on OD sites.

I was asked by a professional to please not repost the information from that site and I made a promise to not visit it again, the last visit I made was back when you guys were patting each other on the backs for finding out my handle there and gettign rid of me. I enjoyed watching the glee as I was supposedly banished from yoru forums. I don't go back out of respect I know it's a foreign term to you but it's something that I value in people.

Opticians can pretend that 'the man' is holding them down but it's all excuses. Form an organization, make a 4-yr college degree a prerequisite for an opticanary degree and include a heavy dose of refraction in the program. Take it to the legislature and you'll likely get want you want. If you can't get that organized, don't blame others.

Irrelevent to the subject of this thread, remove it before I stomp my feet and throw a hissy fit. :D